|
City Manager Gets Pension-Reform Religion
DEC. 28, 2011 By WAYNE LUSVARDI The following joke is posted at the Wall Street Journal: Gov. Jerry Brown’s pension reform plan “reminds me of a pastor of an old church I attended who upon retirement into his church-paid pension, joined another church about a mile away.” It seems the number of California public officials who all of a sudden have converted to a different religion about public pension reform is growing. From Pension Pushers to Pension Reformers Ventura City Manager Rick Cole recently stated public pensions need “reform, repair, and rebooting.” Cole is also former mayor of Pasadena. Cole was on the Pasadena City Council in 1987 when the city convinced the Legislature to pass Senate Bill 481 allowing the city to divert redevelopment property tax revenue to pay for police and firefighter pensions. Pasadena now has a $74 million pension deficit – $148 million with interest – that it has rolled into a pension obligation bond. Like Cole, Gov. Jerry Brown originally authorized collective bargaining in California for public employees back in the 1970’s. Now both Cole and Brown have switched religious affiliations and are leaders in the church of pension reform. Cole endorses Gov. Brown’s pension reform plan. But will Gov. Brown’s pension reform proposal work? Brown’s Plan Gov. Brown’s 12-point pension reform plan includes:
Richard Rider of San Diego Tax Fighters says: “Eventually Gov. Brown will stand up to the unions – sorta, anyway. Our job as California voters is to provide the adult supervision needed – blocking any tax increases so that Sacramento runs out of options, and reform is the only choice left.” A question remains, however: “Are the proposed reforms adequate enough to fix the problem?” Former State Finance Director Michael Genest believes Brown’s proposals are half measures that won’t fix the entire problem. Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters thinks that Brown’s proposal is just a “ploy.” Does a new pension study by Stanford University shed any more light on the situation? New Stanford Study Questions Brown’s Pension Plan A new study by the Stanford University Institute for Economic Policy Research indicates that even with Brown’s reforms there will be a shortfall of $100 billion. The study indicates there is an 82 percent chance of pension assets falling short of obligations. Even worse: CalPERS (the California Public Employees’ Retirement System) must achieve a 9 percent annual return per year for the next 16 years merely to keep assets at 80 percent of pension liabilities. The CalPERS pension funds earned 8.4 percent over the past 20 years. But that was during the “go-go” years of the Mortgage Money and Dot.com Bubbles. CalPERS has already discounted Stanford’s study as “alarmist” (no longer posted online). But the study was conducted by former Democratic state Assemblyman Joe Nation. Nation can hardly be dubbed anti-government or anti-union. Legislative Analyst Warns of Increased Costs, Not Just Savings The State Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) review of Gov. Brown’s pension reform ballot proposal warns that it may not be ratified by the courts and it will impose some added costs, not just savings. According to the LAO, Brown’s proposal will require that local governments raise ALL salaries or offset retirement cost savings somewhere else in the compensation package. The LAO report says there may be long-term cost savings but in the short run there are added costs. Moreover, shifting to what are called “hybrid” and “defined contribution plans” may result in a decrease in pension fund investment returns. Public employers may thus have increase pension costs in the short term. And the LAO cautions that neither Brown’s reform plan or that of California Pension Reform (CPR) will put a dent in government pension costs for decades. Is Only Solution Privatization? Rider believes the only ultimate answer is to convert most of the state and local government work force to private contractors. Rider says that only law enforcement and the justice system are the only ones that cannot be privatized. But would politicians let go of government-created jobs programs that buy votes and patronage? Rider assumes that a ballot proposition can overturn constitutionally guaranteed pension benefit levels. He may be right. But until we have a court ruling we don’t know what hole in the pension pinball machine that public pensions might roll into. In the meantime, cities and counties are basing their pension fund reforms on inflated prophecies about the future. Pensions Will Reduce City Services 25 Percent Ventura’s Cole may be embracing Brown’s public pension reform. But he isn’t telling everyone that more than half of former city manager of the city of Bell Robert Rizzo’s infamous $600,000 a year pension will be paid by taxpayers in 140 California cities. Included is Ventura. Reportedly, the California pension liability pool is responsible for paying Rizzo’s pension. CalPERS holds $312 million in assets for the city of Ventura public pension plan. Ventura has $48 million in reported unmet pension liabilities. In other words, Ventura’s pension plan is 87 percent funded. But can its fund earn $48 million more in the coming years to close the unfunded pension gap? By 2016 CalPERS estimates that Ventura’s total pension contributions will consume 30 percent of general public employee’s salaries and 46 percent of public safety employees. If salaries reflect 70 percent of the operating budget of Ventura, that would indicate that pensions may crowd out about 25 percent of municipal operating budgets. Howard Cure, Director of Municipal Bond Credit for Evercore Financial Management in New York, states that pensions typically take up 4 percent to 9 percent of a city’s operating budget today. In other words, a cut of from 15 percent to 20 percent of existing city services can be anticipated to cover future pension commitments. Cole avoids telling the residents of Ventura what city services will be cut back to afford future public pensions. Shift from Give-Away to Take-Away Politics Economist Robert Samuelson says we are shifting from “give away politics” to “take away politics.” Ironically, the same politicians that embraced “give away” politics in the past are the same we now have to depend on to prevent municipal budget insolvency or deep cuts to public services. But Democratic politicians in California want more spending. They don’t really want to have to play “take away politics.” They are counting on a flood of tax propositions on the November 2012 ballot to cure the structural debt problem. The so-called rich in California – which is about anyone who has sold a median-priced home – cannot bail out the pension system. Samuelson says we may be muddling through the pension crisis to a “messy consensus.” But projections that the unfunded public pension liability gap will be solved are based on faith, not financial science. As Samuelson also warns: “Political leaders assume that financial markets won’t ever choke on U.S. debt and force higher interest rates, stiff spending cuts and tax increases.” So what California might get is both newly imposed taxes followed by a sharp correction in financial markets that takes it all away. But that would be a religious apocalypse that the public pension fund religious prophets don’t believe will every happen.
Comments(59) |
May 23, 2013
What happens to the thousands of public employees who will be laid off if the Rabid Right gets its way? What happens to their families? And what happens to local businesses when these people no longer have money to spend?
A recent study of the potential impact of the so-called Balanced Budget Amendment showed that, had it been in effect in 2012, the nation’s unemployment rate would double because of the loss of hundreds of thousands of public service jobs.
Unemployment–whether it involves public or private employees–hurts the economy, period.
Hey steve:
That recent study was by whom. Let me guess. The unions.
Stanford U, a very liberal place, has debunked everything you froth about. Anyways, no public employees have to be laid off, all they have to do is take a cut in their gold plated pensions. The alternative is Kalifornia defauts and nobody gets any pensions or services.
See the Greeks, who are demanding that americans and Germans work till we are 75 to pay for the IMF loans so they can retire at 52.
Kalifornias debt ratio is close to What Greece’s is. And Greece is defauted now.
Why don’t you go occupy a job instead of some park.
Hondo
TO: stevefromsacto
Good question. But isn’t there another question of whose ox is going to get gored?
If not public pensioners then it will be public employees who will have to be laid off to fully fund pensions.
If city operating budgets have to be cut back say 25%, those services will be layoffs of public employees so that other public employees can have fully funded pensions.
Let’s say a city’s operating budget is $100 million. If taxes have to be raised by 25% – or $25 million – that is $25 million that is being sucked out of the private sector and is not generating returns to banks or stockholders or bondholders or businesspersons. So even if you raise taxes to cover pension obligations it is a zero sum game.
It may be too late to to prevent massive layoffs and this will have nothing to do with the “Rapid Right” but the actuarial mathematics at hand.
A balanced budget tells you nothing. Is it balanced high or balanced low? It can be balanced either way. Balanced high usually means borrowing. Balanced low could mean “pay-go” (pay as you go).
California pension funds are a hybrid of cash inflow from employees contributions and earnings from investments. The earnings on investments aren’t likely going to be enough in a deflationary environment to plug the pension fund gap.
As indicated in the article, even if all pension funds were 100%++ funded investment markets might react by raising interest rates and debt interest would start crowding out pensions or municipal services.
We’re in a situation that is beyond political ideology of the Rabid Right or the Looney Left. We have to find the most responsible way of handling the pension crisis that causes the least amount of pain. If the courts uphold the Constitutional guarantees of existing pension benefit formulas then look for municipal bankruptcies that will wipe out the retirement plans altogether — which would be the most painful of all scenarios.
Cut public employee payt by 25%-no mroe problems and lower pensions, keep it frozen for 10years. Budget deficits gone;
California taxpayers would back the following actions:
1. Close all state/county/municipal retirement funds (e.g., CalPERS, CalSTRS, etc) to new public sector employees and appointed and elected officials to public sector positions.
2. Require California public employers, employees and elected officials to contribute FICA payroll taxes to Social Security. This is federally mandated of all private sector employers and employees. There is no legitimate reason that public employees not pay. This will reduce taxpayers’ exposure to public employe managed investment loss risk. When defined-benefit plans incur heavy investment loses (e.g., last year’s $39 billion loss) we taxpayers are on the hook to make up the difference through increased tax rates or cuts in other areas, such as secondary education or police departments.
3. Retirement planning is each person’s responsibility. Private property owners, and, private sector companies and employees pay California public employees very generously. At the same time, they’ve seen huge drops in their 401k balances which demands more years working, or, retiring on Social Security income.
4. Very high wages and lucrative retirement incentives were once important tools that California public sector employers needed to attract managers from out-of-state to overcome the very high cost of living here. Decades of population inflow trends slowed, stopped, and in recent years reversed to net out migration trends. There are hundreds of thousands of public sector employees in our state so there is really no need to pay a premium to attract out-of-state employees. Give the new positions or challenges to local public or private sector employees and minimize transition headaches and costs.
Summing up…return all public sector employers, employees and elected officials to the Social Security Retirement System; and, let each employee save and invest his/her take home pay for their retirement as their retirement is not a responsibility of California property owners or private sector companies and employees.
Yes stevefromsacto, All for one and one for all …. as long as that ONE is a Public Sector worker ……… whose outsized pensions and benefits are only 10-20% paid for by their own contributions, with Taxpayers paying the 80-90% balance.
Once again it was not Gov. Brown who “originally authorized collective bargaining in California for public employees back in the 1970’s.” That honor goes to Gov. Ronald Reagan, who authorized collective bargaining for all of California’s LOCAL government employees when he signed the Meyers-Milius-Brown Act of 1968.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s approval of legislation extending collective bargaining benefits to STATE employees didn’t occur until he signed the Dills Act nearly a decade after Reagan’s action, and there are/were far fewer state employees than there are local government employees.
Why do you keep getting the history so wrong, Wayne? Is it because you don’t want to acknowledge that the conservative icon of the Republican Party was responsible for collective bargaining by public employees in California?
Yes, collective bargaining was by statute, not a right, and it could be repealed in 1 second, or how ever long to takes to sign the gov’s name to a bill repealing collective bargaining, which should not be allowed in the public sector for 2 reasons-1) it is a monopoly, 2) there is no one bargaining against the public unions because they are paying off the people they suposedly bargain with.
Simple stuff really.
Oppsss..I was wrong, Skippy IS wrong, it was ronniew raygun thatg allowed UNIONIZATIUON of state employees and Brown that allowed collective bargaining.
You’re wrong Skippy, Raygun allowed unionization, not collective bargaining.
StevefromSacto – why don’t you drop the “rabid right” crap. Do you think you’re a clever writer? Creative use of alliteration? “Rabid right.” Wow, I’m so impressed – vitriol with flair.
If you could get off your ideological cant and run the numbers you would quickly see this is not about the “rabid right.” It’s about bankruptcy.
The world is complicated, StevefromSacto. If the rabid right is so bent on pension reform, that must mean the looney left is behind all the banks and brokerages who love issuing “pension obligation bonds” and other forms of financial enslavement. Who wins? Not the rabid right. Wall Street bankers and unionized public employees.
Wall Street loves government debt, because debt is the tool that financial middlemen use to assert control over people and their assets. And no debt is bigger and better for Wall Street than public sector pensions. Wake up. Quit insulting people and think about what’s really going on here.
Hey, Hondo, I’ve been working for a living before you were born. Pity that you think that anyone who disagrees with your right-wing philosophy can’t be a decent, hard-working American. Well, you are WRONG, you jerk.
You are also delusional if you truly believe that Stanford University is “liberal.” Next you’ll tell us that Fox News is the propaganda arm for the Occupy movement.
p.s. The study in question was NOT done by a union. But don’t let the facts get in your way.
Finally, with all of the foaming at the mouth by Rex, Reality Check and the others because I dare post a contrary view, none of you have answered my question: What happens to the thousands of public employees who will be laid off if the Rabid Right gets its way? What happens to their families? And what happens to local businesses when these people no longer have money to spend?
Steve – no one wants layoffs of public or private sector workers – it sucks and has long term implications but it seems like you are avoiding the point of the whole article but resorting to your rhetoric (I know the campaign drill – STAY on MESSAGE) The Stanford report and several others suggest that California has a pension mess that is unsustainable with no clear indication that those in power (the democrats & public sector unions) really want to do anything. I don’t think California voters are ready to vote for higher taxes – how ever they are “dressed up” by allocating them to one popular program or another – until this is fixed.
You are the one who is wrong, Rex. The Meyers-Milias Brown Act, that was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, allowed local public agencies to engage in collective bargaining. Unions had nothing to do with it. I was employed by a municipal entity, at that time. Our, rank and file, employee group engaged in collective bargaining, with our employer, for 20 years, before we ever decided to make it easier, by hiring a public employee’s association, to represent us.
Finally, with all of the foaming at the mouth by Rex, Reality Check and the others because I dare post a contrary view, none of you have answered my question: What happens to the thousands of public employees who will be laid off if the Rabid Right gets its way?
LOL@ “..foaming at the mouth”
Steve, we don’t have to lay off any trough feeders, just cut the feeders pay and beenfits, that is better than getting zero. That has been going on int he real world for 5 plus years-welcoem to America.
Now get with the program you pinko commie
You are the one who is wrong, Rex.
Seesaw, you can’t post your public union propaganda here, now go back to calpensions!
stevefromsacto is right. The state of CA has gone from robust to bust, due to the influx of the population, which includes residents of a much lower demographic, than what populated CA when it was heavily involved, in the defense industry. I came to CA in 1956, with $100 in my pocket, and immediately got a clerical job in the defense industry, which paid me the huge hourly wage, of $1.32/hr. My room-mate, and I, were able to rent an apartment and provide our basic needs, with our low paying jobs. I never left CA, and have lived here 55 years, and lead a simple middle-class life, with a modest public pension. It is not possible now, for new residents to come to CA, the way I did, unless they already have a job with a large company, that will pay them enough, to sustain a family.
Right wingers: If you love CA and want to bring it back ,to some of its previous luster, get behind it then, and quit trying to make it into another Missippi, or Kentucky, or ………………
Rex, its too bad that you have no respect for the opinions of others–if you did, life would be so much easier for you. Your lack of respect for the opinions of others, is probably one of a few reasons, you can’t hold one of those jobs, of which you are so envious.
You may read about the Meyers, Milias, Brown act, yourself, and learn on your own, that things are not always, as you say. I don’t think you will find the word, “unions”, in it. It does include information about Collective Bargaining, though.
Ah, Rex the Dunder Dog trying to do his normal weasel denial once again. Read some history, Rex. Reagan signed the MMBA which permitted collective bargaining by local public safety employees. That’s “collective bargaining” as in unions and professional associations, you dumb dog.
Quoting stevefromsacto ….”What happens to the thousands of public employees who will be laid off if the Rabid Right gets its way? What happens to their families? And what happens to local businesses when these people no longer have money to spend?”
Let’s address the last sentence first ….. Those businesses will still get their purchases, with reduction from Pub Sector workers being replaced by increases purchased from Private Sector workers with the taxes that they will now NOT have to pay for these Civil Servant’s pay, pensions, and benefits.
As to the 1-st 2 sentences, we (the Taxpayers who are not Public Sector workers) were not put on earth to either provide (and pay for) excessive numbers of workers or for excessive pay (and particularly excessive pension and benefits) of the smaller number Public Sector workers that we indeed need to employ. And what will terminated workers have to do ? ….. the same as terminated workers in the Private Sector do, work hard at finding a new job, don’t take it for granted, and don’t count on a Union and politician’s giving you things that can’t be paid for with that company’s “profits”, as the company won’t have Taxpayers to pay their bills.
Get used to it Steve ….. the party’s over.
Amazing, simply amazing. Our roads are falling apart, our classrooms are overcrowded, we’re having to close state parks because of the lack of personnel, etc. But all we hear from Tough Love and his anti-government buds is how we have an “excessive” number of public employees. The only place that’s true is in the Dream World of the right where there are no government services.
Next, we already have more than 14 million Americans unemployed, but the thousands who will be laid off in a government shutdown can just run out and find new jobs, right? Maybe they can pick crops after you’ve finished jailing or deporting all the undocumented workers–another right-wing dream.
And of course, most of us know better than to rely on a company’s “profits” for anything, let alone decent wages or job creation.
Steve, Have you ever considered that we would not need to let anyone go if your pensions were frozen and replaced with a 401K with a modest match ?
Per the US Gov’t BLS, with the exception of a few highly professional occupations (e.g., doctors, lawyers, etc.) “cash pay” alone is no less for Public than Private Sector workers. That being the case, why are Public Sector workers deserving of Pensions ROUTINELY (with the taxpayer paid-for share of which is) 2, 4, even 6 times (for safety workers) greater than their Private sector counterparts?
Clearly there is no justification. Eliminate those pensions and a huge portion of the problem is solved, and with it the necessary terminations .
So … will you do your part, agree to freeze you pension and move to a modest 401K ?
1. It is not “MY” pension. I am not a public employee. You know what happens when you assume.
2. The BLS numbers just measure public employees vs. private sector employees’ salaries. And surprise, surprise, the average government worker makes more money than Wal-Mart clerks or McDonald’s servers. But when you compare the salaries and benefits of those who do comparable work (for example, an electrical engineer or a lawyer in state service vs. one in the private sector), the government employee generally makes less, sometimes much less.
3. The devil is in the details. I’m not against pension reform per se. Indeed, I applaud the elimination of things like pension spiking and would certainly consider at least a hybrid program for new hires. But if you think the Rabid Right would stop there, you also believe in the Tooth Fairy. Next on the list, as sure as Friday follows Thursday, would be wage cuts and layoffs.
As much as I’ld like to assume that you and the others on the Right would be decent and fair-minded about giving public employees the salary and benefits they earn and deserve , I keep thinking of Grover Norquist’s famous conservative mantra about ‘shrinking the size of government so we can drown it in the bathtub.” Maybe your ultimate goal isn’t complete privatization of government, but I’m sure many of your more vitriolic colleagues on this blog would welcome it.
TL, all public employees already have modest 401k-type plans, to supplement their DB pensions. They are called 457b’s. I had a 457b for about 30 years. The first provider, “NILEC”, went bankrupt, in the early 80′s, and my 457b, was frozen for three years, without interest. I then got a portion of it back, and went on to saving in the same Plan with the new provider, “Great West Retirement Services”. It went up and down like a washboard, during the rest of my active tenure. By the time, of my retirement, there was enough in it, to give me about 15 years’ worth of thousand dollar, monthly checks. My account lost 20 thousand dollars from 2008 to March,09. Then it started climbing back up. In the last third quarter it lost ten thousand dollars; in October, it gained six thousand dollars. Then, it recently started to lose again. If I had been able to save enough in the original plan, to pay me, in retirement, what I now receive from CalPERS, I would have needed, two millions dollars. You have to be joking, to suggest to steve, that he or any other public employee, should consider freezing, their DB pensions, and moving forward with 401k’s. That is not going to happen, and if any initiative is passed, requiring such, the Court is going to take care of that, because it will be ruled unconstitutional.
Amazing, simply amazing. Our roads are falling apart, our classrooms are overcrowded, we’re having to close state parks because of the lack of personnel, etc.
Yes Steve our roads are falling apart- because we spent all the money to maintain them on $10 million pensions for HS educated cops and FFs.
Our classrooms are over crowded b/c we spend $108K per year on the AVERAGE teacher who only works 175 days per year.
And yes our parks are closed b/c we comp park rangers $150K per year for babysitting camp grounds……
THAT is why everythign is fallig apart, because of greedy public employees who would be LUCKY to get a job making minimum wage in the real world.
OMG was that fun, telling off Stever
Next seesaw and Skippy!
It is not “MY” pension. I am not a public employee.
Steve, you most certainly are a public…errr…tough feeder
Stop spinning those whoppers buddy!
Steve, I had assumed you were a PE, when I wrote my post, and before I read your post. It is nice, once in a while, to see a rare post, from a non-PE, who is not a PE hater, simply because of a difference in the sectors, where they, respectively, earned a living.
Seeing these City Managers coming into this, “New Religion”, is kind of a hoot. They are the ones who are pulling in the big pensions, were non-union. And, now they are sounding the alarm about, the rank and file public employees, who have the audacity, to desire livable benefits, upon retirement. The average CalPERS monthly benefit, for those who retired in the fiscal year, 2010-2011, is $3065/mo. (That’s not union propaganda, Rex. That is taken from the CalPERS fact sheet.) When you think about my former CM, who receives six times more than I, it really puts, into perspective, how modest retirements really are, for a majority, of retirees.
seesaw, if you think steve is not a trougher then you have the brain power of a snail
stevefromsacto said …”1. It is not “MY” pension. I am not a public employee…. ”
You seem WAY too protective of Public Sector workers and the grossly excessive pensions & benefits to simply be conveying the opinion of an observer with no conflict of interest.
IS you wife, partner, child, parent, relative, good friend ….. ?
Average calpers benefit for a full time employee is over $70K
Steve …. and just in case your are technically not a “public” employee….
Do you (or any relative, partner or good friend) have credit towards a Taxpayer-funded pension anywhere ?
John Galt, the public officials, in CA, in the early 1900′s, had the tremendous, considerate, foresight, to set up the first, DB pension system, in the State, for teachers. CalPERS, for all public employees, is 80 years old. And you want to take it all away, for what? Because you don’t have a DB pension, yourself?
Unfortunately, for new part-time employees, at the municipal entity, where I was employed, there is no membership in CalPERS; they receive SS only. They may be scheduled to work, up to 39 hours/wk. And, if they should have the good fortune to become full-time, in the future, they are prevented, by the contract, my former employer has with CalPERS, from purchasing their previous part-time service. There–that should make you happy.
Most public entities are already in the SS system, as well as in the DB pension plans. Every little bit of reinforcement, that can be added, to the retirement plan, of any one individual, translates into a higher, general demographic condition, for the residents, in our state. Everyone who works for a living, public or private sector, has the right to expect something, in their declining years, for the fruits of their labor. SS only, is not enough, to even provide the cost of medical insurance, to supplement Medicare.
I am reminded of the words of Richard Simmons, who presented at a session of the AARP Convention, I recently attended: He said, “Remember–you are only here, once.” I think that is good advice.
Author, I think you should be aiming your lectures at the private sector–after all, it was the private sector, namely Wall Street, that has caused all this pain. I trust that you have seen, “Inside Job”, and “Margin Call”.
I do not lie Rex, and I take it for granted that others are telling the truth, too, unless something comes up, to prove them liars. Steve says he is not a PE. Why should I not believe his comments? They are true, to me, unless you can prove otherwise. I think it is possible that non-public sector workers, are actually sensible and decent enough, to realize, that we are all part, of the same CA constituency. We care about CA, and want to see it survive.
Seesaw, The depth of your blindness to what’s fair TO ALL, not just Civil Servants, is astounding.
Society simply doesn’t have the resources to provide the level of Pensions/Benefits currently provided Public Sector workers to ALL it’s members. It certainly would be nice if we could, but we can’t. So why should Public Sector workers get more than a fair share?
Some serious soul-searching is in order.
Seesaw, The depth of your blindness to what’s fair TO ALL, not just Civil Servants, is astounding.
It is not blindness it is ignornace. seesaw actually BELIEVES what she is writing, same with Skippy, they truly, deep down, in their cold and dark hearts, believe their own nonsnese.
The reaosn they believe it is becuase they never really had to make a livign in the rela world. They were coddled and pampered in the make beleive world of gov employement.
I had to make living in CA Rex. It was in the real world. I was married to a carpenter, who worked in the real world, for 50 years–now, if you want to know what real work is like, I can tell you about that, from the experiences of mys spouse–I doubt if you ever did that kind of work, in your life, Rex. I have lived in the real world all my life. Take your pathetic whimpering back to your box–I would guess you are a lousy pet, for your owner, too.
Last time I looked TL, this country was focussed on capitalism. Some people do better than others. I’m fortunate to be a member of the lower, middle class. I am thankful, for that. I give kudos to those who have gone to much higher relms, than I ever will.
Take your pathetic whimpering back to your box–I would guess you are a lousy pet, for your owner, too.
That was too much seesaw, even for Rex the Wonder Dog! to endure……….
Quoting SeeSaw …”Last time I looked TL, this country was focussed on capitalism. Some people do better than others. I’m fortunate to be a member of the lower, middle class. I am thankful, for that. I give kudos to those who have gone to much higher relms, than I ever will.”
Is that your explanation of …. “why should Public Sector workers get more than a fair share?”
Is that your explanation of …. “why should Public Sector workers get more than a fair share?”
TL, you’re never going to get seesaw to acknowledge or admit she is involved in a scam. Skippy the same. They are so blind to their propaganda they are incapable of stepping back and seeing the real/big picture.
Any time some moron starts calling himself “John Galt,” you know it’s pointless and frustrating to engage him in any dialog.
I keep wishing all of these Randites would actually do what they like to threaten: Go Galt and disappear into the hills.
Our world would be a much better place.
We won’t acknowledge that public pension systems are, in your words, “a scam” because they clearly are not.
Calling something a scam doesn’t make it so, but it does demonstrate your envy and lack of critical thinking.
If our country is going to be based on capitalism, TL, then there really is no such thing, as a fair share. Everyone is on their own–that includes accessing any private or government programs available, to help each individual attain their own place, of contentment.
Rex, you make a statement here, that the average CalPERS benefit, for a full-time employee is $70,000. (I assume you mean the average of all CalPERS annuitants, who were full time employees, when they were active. Your figure is not true.) What official document are you referring to? I make my comments, from facts contained, in the official documents, of CalPERS. Currently, the average monthly CalPERS benefit is $2332/mo. The average monthly CalPERS benefit, for annuitants, who retired during the, 2010-2011 fiscal year, is $3065/mo. You must have pulled your figure from someplace, other than CalPERS.
SeeSaw, If you pick 20-yr., 25-yr., 30-yr., or 35-yr., career workers retiring in the past year, the starting average annuity (in any of those groupings) of the Public Sector retiree is AT LEAST 2x greater, and often 3-4x times greater than that of the Private Sector retiree.
Then adjusting for the fact that the Public Sector retiree (but not the Private Sector retiree) get COLA increases, adds “value” equivalent to another 1x greater.
And then adjusting for the fact that the Public Sector retiree starts collecting that pension at a much younger age, again adds “value” equivalent to another 1x greater.
Put it all together and that’s why the “value at retirement” of the Public Sector retiree’s pension is TYPICALLY 4-6x that of the comparable Private Sector retiree.
Oh, but you needn’t respond … as you stated above …. getting more than your “fair share” is fine and dandy with you.
Perhaps taxpayers will return that favor in the near future. If they find a way to renege on your pension, then I guess that will also be “fair”.
If no one else will say it, I will. Yes, people do want public employees laid off. That is what happens when times are tough and please stop trying to convince anyone with a brain that we don’t have enough public employees. We have way too many!
You are obviously, obsessed with comparing apples and oranges, TL. Its going to leave you very frustrated in the end, becausing you are going to be, on the losing end.
I think if I lived in NJ, I would be worrying about political happenings, in that state, instead of what’s going on in CA. How are your property taxes in NJ, TL?
What documented facts do you have to show for your statement, Greg Thompson? What is the percentage of public employees to total population, compared to other states?
I think if I lived in NJ, I would be worrying about political happenings, in that state, instead of what’s going on in CA. How are your property taxes in NJ, TL?
TL do you live in New Jersey?? If so you have one hell of a gov!!!!
But, we need you here in the battle gorund state of CA to take on the troughers! Make the move buddy, we will team up and knock Skippy and seesaw out in a tag team wrestling match
Rex, Hopefully, I’ve contributed to “educating” the masses of the HUGE (often hidden) cost of Public Sector DBs Plans, and how little the employees pay towards those VERY rich (and therefore costly) benefits.
I feel for the huge Private Sector middle class who suffers so comparable middle Class Public Sector workers can retire with so much more … at their expense.
Two years ago, few understood this and my contributions were important. Today, with the word widely spread, and with journalists carrying the banner, my comments are not really needed. Often I wonder why I still bother.
And SeeSaw, not sure what you meant, by … “you are going to be, on the losing end” …. as I’ve spent decades successfully in the financial sector. The boss you speak of would love to trade his income for mine.