New Jersey in 2011 passed a law promising to make its legally required, actuarially-determined pension contributions* yet in a bond prospectus this month the state asserts:
“No assurances can be given as to the level of the State’s pension contributions in future fiscal years”
In one of the lamer political rationalizations for lying:
Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak provided The Star-Ledger with several examples where identical warnings were included in previous bond prospectuses dating back to at least 2009, calling it a standard disclosure.
“The language referred to is standard disclosure language that is identical to bond offerings disclosures going back to at least 2009 and the Corzine administration,” Drewniak said. “It is because we cannot tie the hands of, or commit future legislatures or governors’ actions that we are obligated to include such language.”
So no assurances could have been made in 2009 but, after the 2011 law passed, shouldn’t this language have changed? How much of this prospectus is boilerplate? Has anyone checked? Is there still language in there from the Cahill administration about not needing an income tax?
What other tidbits are in the 16 pages of the prospectus devoted to Funding Pension Plans and what do they really mean?