Overlooked Flaws the Pension Payment Case

As part of NJTV’s coverage of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in the pension payment case they interviewed former Supreme Court Justice Peter Verniero:
.

.
But there were two aspects of the ruling that nobody seems to have picked up on:

OK to create debt but not to pay it

If the Debt Limitation Clause applies and amounts in excess of 1% of the state budget need voter approval then why does it apply to those who have to make the payment and not to those creating the debt? That $1.6 billion that is not being deposited this year is theoretically a debt that future taxpayers will have to pay, with interest. But with this ruling those future taxpayers will also be able to renege on that payment. So who then IS going to pay it?

Bundling Payments

That $1.6 billion was a debt to the pension funds but it was also a debt to individuals which raises more questions:

  • Would this ruling have been different if the plan were a Defined Contribution plan where each participant were promised an annual contribution of 5% of their salary which, for all participants, would total over the 1% threshold?
  • What about salaries?  If there is a pay period where total state payroll exceeds the 1% threshold then do all the payments become subject to either voter discretion or legislative appropriation if the checks are not physically cut in the year the service is provided?
  • What about bonds and all other state expenses?  Can they be bundled, delayed, and shirked? Could, for example, the state stop paying those Whitman Pension Obligation Bonds? If they did and bondholders went to court then can the state now cite Burgos?

 

 

62 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by bpaterson on June 12, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    I’m confused about “debt” and “obligation”. Isnt debt a term for “borrowing” and if so then by law it should be a referendum, providing the state is going out to borrow (much like OPEBs back in whitmans time). But if the money is supposed to be coming out of taxes and revenues toward the operations of the state which covering benefits and salaries sounds like it fits the definition, then its not a debt but an annual “obligation”. Does that mean that if the govt pushes any operational expense into the next year and if it then totals over 1% of the budget, then it has to be voted on?

    Reply

    • There is also that thing about voting on an obligation after you have incurred it. Imagine if you couldn’t make your mortgage payment and you got to decide whether you would or not.

      Reply

      • Posted by truthnolie on June 12, 2015 at 5:56 pm

        That’s a point I’ve been stressing all along.

        And, if debt incurred by the state must be voted on, why isn’t welfare, affordable housing aid, etc. treated the same way?

        Reply

        • I agree with you truthnolie, let the hard working taxpaying citizens vote on the debt that the state will incur. Problem is that no one in their right mind would voted to keep giving money to welfare queens, drug addicts, disability cheats, food stamps, free housing, etc while the rest of us have to work and pay for it all while most of these freeloaders sit home reproducing future recipients of hand outs. IMHO this is worse than the public takers who expect the rest of us to pay for their retirments and health benefits.

          Reply

      • John, we do get to decide whether or not to make our mortgage payments, If we decide not to due to inability to pay, the bank forecloses, short sales, etc, owners maybe file for bankruptcy and the house is sold for a lot less meaning the bank and the owner take a loss. Same as pensions, the state can’t pay or I have no doubt that they would have to keep thier minions happy. The publics now have to take the loss due to circumstances that might have been avoided.

        Reply

      • Posted by Formerjerseyan on June 13, 2015 at 9:47 am

        Imagine being able to buy a house using funds borrowed and with your kids or grandkids paying the mortgage, even though the Constitution of the State in which they are born/live says that would be illegal.

        The problem with facile analogies is that they oversimplify the situation. Eventually, agreement will be reached to cap benefits so that those at the top don’t deplete the pension fund, and the person who steps forward with a plan to do that and roll back property taxes in the process will be enhrined in the pantheon of great former NJ governors (oh, wait…..)

        Reply

  2. Well, it seems this supreme court ruling basically echos their ruling of a few years ago when the unions first sued to have it required that money be put into the pension fund. I.e. that basically, while the government is contractually required to pay the pension benefits (out of general fund revenue if necessary), they do not have to pay into the pension fund. I.e. as long as the checks keep going out, all is well. But does this ruling go farther? When the pension fund is really empty and the state would have to pay the 10-15 billion yearly pension costs out of general fund revenue, couldn’t they just use this case as precedent and not pay? Could they really be forced to pay that kind of money? At that point, it seems, any blood that they might have managed to squeeze out of a stone would be long gone. Anyway, as you said in an earlier post, people doing business with NJ are really going to have to ask for payment up front, or else expect there is a good chance they won’t get paid all or any. Why do the public workers even want a pension anymore, aren’t they scared to death of not getting anything? If they moved to a 401k type plan, they would at least get the money up front and the state couldn’t steal it from them anymore, it would be their money in their own private account. Who in their right mind would trust some cash strapped government entity to pay a regular stream of cash to them 30 years in the future?

    On a related note, how do you compare this ruling to the recent Illinois ruling on pensions where pensions were ruled sacrosanct and not to be modified in any way. Here is a salient comment from an article about that case:

    “Crisis is not an excuse to abandon the rule of law,” the court said in a 38-page decision that even invoked the U.S. Supreme Court’s famous reversal of Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

    Today it is nullification of the right to retirement benefits. Tomorrow it could be renunciation of the duty to repay State obligations. Eventually, investment capital could be seized.

    Doesn’t this NJ Supreme Court ruling portend exactly this kind of future for NJ that the Illinois Supreme court held up as an abomination — nullification of retirement benefits, renunciation of state obligations, seizement of investment capital, etc.? This seems to be NJ’s future, nobody trusting anybody anymore and not being able to count on the law and courts to help.

    Reply

    • I have always said public employees should be screaming for a Defined Contribution plan because of the shakiness of their current plan sponsor. You could always defined your contribution to equalize the benefits as compared to the DB but you become assured (kind of) that the contribution will be made and you don’t have to go through a compromised filter. The problem though is transparency. Not so much for younger employees but DB annual accruals can be massive for those closer retirement.

      The Illinois decision would better be compared to the upcoming (maybe) decision in the COLA case since they both speak to benefits and not contributions. I agree that the 1997 NJEA decision as to DB contributions not being protected was consistent with what the NJ Supreme Court decided here except for that little contact-law thing which did not exist in 1997.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on June 13, 2015 at 8:50 am

        NJ managed to interfere with the lifetime income flow from NJABP plan in 2011 by imposing an age requirement, totally unnecessary since the monies are vested. Then in August 2013, the NJ DIVISION OF PENSION AND BENEFITS attempted to limit the yearly payout for lifetime income to $ 138000 per year, a lifetime income annuity is an insurance product, so why bother with a limit. The NJABP decisions for lifetime income are basically made/controlled by Treasury representative Susan Cullitan. So NJABP retirees submit there retirement papers to their HR dept and the NJ Division of Pension and Benefits but what’s not known is that there is a million dollar payout limit for a lifetime income annuity from the insurance company, so the retiree recieve an interim payment until it their turn for payout up to 60 months. In the meantime many NJABP retires use a quicker option for payout, 2-30 years with or without a guarantee period, once the term ends so does the payment. In the meantime the insurer provides the policyholder administrative fees which go into the general fund These fees based on account accumulations can amount to a nice revenue stream. So, the existing dc plans need to be investigated for abuses in payout schemes and how the administrative fee scheme impacts payout options and available information. NJABP needs a committee and board to protect its integrity and to insure that ret tires are not being taken advantage of by the Treasury Dept for revenue generated for administrative functions ie collecting contributions and sending to providers.

        Reply

  3. Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Quoting the 1-st bullet ….

    “Would this ruling have been different if the plan were a Defined Contribution plan where each participant were promised an annual contribution of 5% of their salary which, for all participants, would total over the 1% threshold?”

    While this is a valid question in the context of the Court ruling, I’m quite sure you would agree that NONE of these discussions would be taking place now because there would be zero UAAL, and the “generosity” of NJ’s Public Sector plans (being COMPARABLE IN VALUE to those in the PRIVATE Sector) would be about 2/3 LESS generous for non-safety workers, and 3/4 LESS generous for safety workers.

    Under a DC Plan with a 5% of pay annual contribution, our elected officials would have HAD TO “find the money” in every year’s budget, and not defer the cost for FUTURE taxpayers to have to deal with.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on June 12, 2015 at 7:58 pm

      Quoting TL herself, “still an idiot.” How does it feel to read your own words.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2015 at 9:42 pm

        Try posting something “productive” to the discussion.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on June 13, 2015 at 3:02 am

          TL posted “still an idiot” or “still a moron” at least 20 times, was she posting something productive to the discussion?

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2015 at 3:23 am

            So far you have TWICE … in just this last Post of John’s …. that your are STILL, an idiot.

    • Posted by PatB on June 13, 2015 at 10:24 am

      Private industry reduces or holds back 401k payments when times are bad. I don’t think the state can ever be trusted not to do the same.

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 13, 2015 at 4:36 pm

        Do unionized businesses do that? With a current contract in place?

        My wife’s employer considered that, but they are non-union, They ultimately decided to continue the 401(k) contributions.

        Reply

        • Posted by MJ on June 13, 2015 at 7:26 pm

          Your wife’s employer must be doing well and be large if they are matching? Employee 401k contributions

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 13, 2015 at 10:01 pm

            Technically 50% match. She contributes 6% to get 3% from the employer. Same as before the bottom dropped out.

            The business is doing well. Not large but still growing.

            In addition to 401(k), she can buy company stock at 25% discount.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2015 at 3:47 am

            Did you forget to mention that the is quite a low limit on the amount that she can buy at a discount ?

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 14, 2015 at 8:46 am

            Seriously?

            I didn’t mention her health or dental benefits, either.

            SMH

  4. Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    From a NJ(dot)com article on the Court decision. So perfectly described that they need to be posted here:

    “This stems from the state constitution’s debt-lmitation clause, which requires that “any debt or debts, liability or liabilities” of the state must be approved by the voters.

    The clause had never been interpreted before to cover the pension fund. But the precedent it sets represents a crushing defeat for the unions.

    They have only themselves to blame. For decades now they’ve been cozying up to the politicians to win benefits that are unaffordable in the real world.

    The reason private employees no longer have pensions is that we don’t get to elect our bosses. Public workers do.

    But the court just told the workers who their real bosses are: the taxpayers.

    So it’s back to the drawing board, union leaders. What plan will you present us? “

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2015 at 2:41 pm

      “benefits that are unaffordable in the real world” ……… i,e., “grossly excessive”.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on June 13, 2015 at 3:22 pm

      The pension payments are a normal employer cost for the State of NJ. This normal budget expenditure, pension payments, with years of documented budget lines became a debt based on the decisions of past and present Governor’s. The presidence established based on years of being rightfully included in NJ State budget is that pension payment are long-term obligations in the normal business regarding state employees. The pension debt is not normal it is calculated and a result of shortsightedness.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2015 at 4:15 pm

        It is ALL the “result” of GROSSLY EXCESSIVE pension & benefit promises.

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 13, 2015 at 4:42 pm

          In “your opinion”, Brother.

          Gov . Christie said he would pay it if he could.

          Justice LaVecchia for the majority said:

          ” That those men and women must be paid their pension benefits when due is not in question in this matter.”

          Sounds like these are routine contractual rights, not “GROSSLY EXCESSIVE”.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2015 at 5:00 pm

            I also agree with Justice LaVecchia …… where in his overall conclusion to the Union lawsuit he stated:

            “HELD: Chapter 78 does not create a legally enforceable contract that is entitled to constitutional protection. The Debt Limitation Clause of the State Constitution interdicts the creation, in this manner, of a legally binding enforceable contract compelling multi-year financial payments in the sizable amounts called for by the statute.”

            ————————–

            You lose !

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 13, 2015 at 5:24 pm

            Nobody wins.

            The judge said chapter 78 was not legally enforceable. He did not say the pensions themselves were not legally enforceable. Big difference.

            One says NJ must pay the system $1.6B today. The other says the retirees will receive their contracted pensions. Two different contracts, only one was deemed unenforceable.

            He did not say the pension & benefit promises were grossly excessive.

            He said “The individual members of the public pension systems, by their public service, earned this delayed part of their compensation.”

            Brother Moderation

        • Posted by Anonymous on June 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm

          The State is an employer, wages and benefits are normal expenditures. TO believes in indentured servitude.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2015 at 3:50 am

            No, I aggressively advocate to end the GROSSLY EXCESSIVE NJ public sector Plans in place right now.

        • Posted by Anonymous on June 13, 2015 at 5:14 pm

          Please note retirees pension payments can/will come from general revenue if the system collapse.

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 13, 2015 at 5:30 pm

            I wish I could agree. Pension payments *should* come from general revenue.

            After watching a rookie infielder make three or four consecutive errors at third base, old pro Durocher steps onto the field, sends the rookie to the sidelines, says, “Let me show you how to play third base, kid.” Next ball bounces down to Durocher, skids off his shins, caroms into the outfield. Durocher turns to the kid and screams, “You’ve got third base so screwed up nobody can play it!”

            That, unfortunately, is New Jersey in a nutshell.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2015 at 3:51 am

            Pension “will” come for general revenue …… when hell freezes over.

          • Posted by Anonymous on June 14, 2015 at 1:04 pm

            TL you really are an offspring of the devil. There is no need for dramatics, pensions are earned and must be paid.

  5. Game. Set. Match. I wouldn’t give the public takers another penny. What are they going to do , get a job in the private sector ??? Ha ha.
    Be happy most of you were able to get off the pyramid early and did very for 20 years. But the ponzi is over. Time for reality. To smack you parasites in the fangs. Your host is dead. Now its your turn.

    Reply

    • The public sector has ruled NJ for the past 40 years. During that time most of the benefits of higher than average extortive taxation have flowed to them. Retiring at 50 with ridiculous (immediate) pensions based on the last year’s artificially pumped up compensation, free medical care for life for working all of 25 years, 9% retroactive boosts in pensions for no reason, accruing 15 sick days per year to go along with 13 holidays. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately the jig is up, the bloom is off the rose and the halcyon days are over. Even the dumbest NJ registered voter is seeing the light.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2015 at 4:17 pm

        Well stated !

        Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 13, 2015 at 4:57 pm

        Very few actually retire at 50.

        “Paid leave encompasses sick time, vacation days, paid holidays, and personal leave. On average, paid leave is almost precisely the same in the private sector as in state government, with values of 11.11 percent and 11.06 percent of wages respectively.”

        (Overpaid or Underpaid? A State-by-State Ranking of Public Employee Compensation, Andrew Biggs)

        The list goes on and on, but is often grossly exaggerated.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2015 at 5:11 pm

          BS……….

          (1) VERY few Private Sector companies allow accumulation of unused “sick leave”. If not used IN THE YEAR … FOR LEGITIMATE SICKNESS … you lose it.
          and I am aware of NONE that allow you to “cash out” unused “sick leave” upon termination or retirement..

          (2) And yes, while FEW retire at 50, MANY retire at 55 with full/unreduced pensions …. a HUGE HUGE “advantage” over when Private Sector workers can retire without a SIGNIFICANT “early retirement” reduction (of about 5% per-year-of-age below 65).

          Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on June 13, 2015 at 5:09 pm

        Just were did you read your state negotiated employment benefits ended as a result of actions by CC or the state courts?

        Reply

    • Posted by PatB on June 13, 2015 at 4:40 pm

      Actually a lot of folks I work with are talking of bailing to private industry, figuring they are wasting their money on a doomed pension. So they may be coming for your job! But you are probably retired, hoping that CC will win and do his magic on social security.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2015 at 5:13 pm

        Oh please do ………… just wait till you “demand” something from your Private Sector boss.

        Reply

      • Posted by MJ on June 13, 2015 at 7:30 pm

        Best to take your chances and stay where you are as you wouldn’t last 2 weeks in any similar private sector job.

        Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 13, 2015 at 5:05 pm

      “What are they going to do , get a job in the private sector ??? Ha ha.”

      Ha ha…..they already did!

      The average “career” for state retirees is twenty years. Where do you think they spent the other twenty?

      That’s just for retirees. About half of state workers don’t even work long enough to vest. State job is just one more relocation at the beginning, middle, or end of their total working career.

      And, whether they now work in the public or private sector, they are all still “taxpayers”

      “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

      Reply

      • Posted by PatB on June 14, 2015 at 12:20 am

        “What are they going to do , get a job in the private sector ??? Ha ha.”

        Also according to Biggs, “… that, in addition to having more years of
        education than the average private sector worker, state government employees tend to have college majors in areas that garner above average pay in the private sector.’

        Add making generally smaller salaries (especially now with the reduced benefits) and those public employees may be more competitive in the private sector than you think.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2015 at 4:00 am

          Please provide a link for this statement …. “state government employees tend to have college majors in areas that garner above average pay in the private sector.’”

          No offense, but the largest group of Public Sector workers are “teachers” and a degree in “education” (Bachelors or Masters) is a joke compared to a BS or MS in a STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) field.

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 14, 2015 at 7:54 am

            Laughing Out Loud.

            I keep telling you: “read the whole study” don’t just keep repeating that “23% advantage” chart out of context. That’s something Brietbart or Fox News would do.

            The list goes on and on, but is often grossly exaggerated.

          • Posted by PatB on June 14, 2015 at 11:02 am

            Its from a source you cite all the time: https://www.aei.org/publication/overpaid-or-underpaid-a-state-by-state-ranking-of-public-employee-compensation/
            Page 20. This is for state workers and does not include teachers.

            More important is table 4, which gives the state-private wage differential, showing the salary difference for education (BA -18%, MA -24%, Prof -37%, Phd -35%). That differential was offset by benefits that are becoming history.

            Even half of that would be a big raise to the professionals here, who would be hard pressed not to take it and run.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2015 at 12:28 pm

            PatB, for completeness a few things should be added to your comment ….

            (1) That study includes only STATE workers who typically earn less than comparable LOCAL workers, and more importantly, excludes all safety workers with higher than average “wages” and FAR FAR higher pensions & benefits.
            Had they been included, the study results would show a considerably lower PRIVATE Sector “wage” (i.e., “cash pay”) advantage, and a considerably higher PUBLIC Sector “Total Compensation” (cash pay +pensions +benefits) advantage.

            (2) This blog focuses on NJ’s financial problems. While NATIONALLY there is (per study page 7) a 12 % Public “wage” disadvantage, that disadvantage drops to only 4% for NJ (per FIGURE 1). And per figure 6, on a “Total Compensation” basis, that NJ 4% Public Sector”wage” disadvantage” swings the other way into a 23% Public Sector “Total Compensation” advantage. And further, if the incremental value of far greater PUBLIC Sector job security is factored in, per Figure 13, that 23% Public Sector “Total Compensation” advantage rises to 34%.

            (3) As I have pointed out in prior comments, there is a problem with simply comparing Public/Private Sector Wages and Total Compensation in the Professional and PHD categories. While the “statistics” show material Private Sector Wage and Total Compensation, are we including the bias of “outliers” imposed by the the VERY high earnings of multi-millionaire and billionaire Private Sector PHDs and Professionals? Are there any $ million per year cosmetic surgeons working in the PUBLIC Sector (and would any?). And, there are MD’s who are the founders of majors drugs companies (one billionaire owning an $80 million estate on Florida’s Star Island) with annual earnings in the tens of $ Millions. Clearly the huge earnings of such Private Sector superstars (with no Public Sector counterparts) biases the results. And it would be ridiculous to say that some of the Public Sector PHD’s and professions should be equally paid …. because if they had the skills/knowledge to do so, they would have already moved into the Private Sector.

  6. 1. I would never hire a former public taker. Never.
    2. I agree they are taxpayers. Which is why it’s so strange I Never hear one public taker demand lower property taxes. Their salary and benefits is paid by taxpayers. So its nothing more than an accounting entry. They produce nothing.

    Reply

    • Posted by MJ on June 13, 2015 at 7:32 pm

      Correct and the public takers are getting a much much better return on real estate taxes and all other taxes that All my citizens are burdened with

      Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 13, 2015 at 9:09 pm

      Actually, with the exception of safety workers, there is very little difference in retirement ages between public and private:

      “Gallup conducted several polls in the early 1990s and found that the average retirement age was 57 in both 1991 and 1993. From 2002 through 2012, the average hovered around 60. Over the past two years, the average age at which Americans report retiring has increased to 62.”

      And there are quite a few non-safety public workers who technically retire at 50. At some point in their careers, they worked public long enough to vest (usually 5 to 10 years). At CalPERS they have the option of:

      1). Lump sum withdrawal of their own contributions (they lose the state matching contribution.)

      2). Begin drawing pension at 50. Formula is about one percent times years of service. (There is no retiree medical unless the employee retires within 90 days of last work day.)

      3). Begin drawing pension at a later age with progressively higher formulas. (No medical.)

      Most are not really “retired”. They continue working their private sector job while supplementing their income with the pension.

      It doesn’t really make sense to compare “full retirement ages” based just on nominal ages in formulas. I, as a miscellaneous employee *could* have retired at age 50 with about 30% of final pay, plus healthcare. Most of those I worked with retired in their early to mid sixties. Just like the private sector.

      I am continually amazed and equally amused by your puerile biases and stereotypes. Thousands of workers yearly move from the public to the private sector, or vice versa.

      Public workers “produce” services every bit as valuable as the private sector, and, their taxes are not an “accounting entry” they are just as painful and unpopular as any other taxpayer. You might be surprised to learn that public sector workers vote against tax increases at about the same ratio as does the private sector..

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2015 at 4:06 am

        I’m not sure if the average retirement age for Private Sector workers is close to Non-safety workers or not, but what more relevant is that the PUBLIC Sector workers get a pension MULTIPLES GREATER in value at retirement BOTH because their formulas are much richer AND because they can retire at much younger ages with full/unreduced pensions….. well below age 65, which is the usual retirement for an unreduced pension in the Private Sector.

        This compensation “advantage” must end for all CURRENT Public Sector workers.

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 14, 2015 at 7:36 am

          You’re doing the apples/oranges comparison again, brother. “Pension advantage” is not the same as compensation advantage.

          “The list goes on and on, but is often grossly exaggerated.”

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2015 at 1:02 pm

            Yes, and Per Figures 6 and 13 (in the study linked above), in NJ and on a “Total Compensation” basis the PUBLIC Sector has a 23% “advantage” (34% with the incremental value of greater PUBLIC Sector job security).

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 14, 2015 at 2:26 pm

            Data which is up to six years old in a study that is unquestionably biased.

          • Always “exaggerated” to the people receiving them. And when you are comparing average retirement ages, don’t exclude uniformed services; their retirement schemes are the most costly and outrageous.

  7. Posted by Anonymous on June 15, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    As a vested member of the pension system, I would like to point out that I have statements from the state of NJ clearly stating the amount of my contribution and the matching amount from the state—which was never made. This is securities fraud, I am quite certain of it.

    Second, why would any public employee sit down at the table with this Gov? No chance. Let’s see who gets paid first when the system goes broke: the pensioners (who are not getting paid now) or the bond holders (who are getting paid now). I’ll risk it. The end result of course will be massive tax hikes, bond defaults, and reduced pensions. So be it. This is what 20 years of not making a payment has brought us.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 15, 2015 at 10:44 pm

      (1) The “generosity” of your pension is such that if the State (in each year of your career) “matched” your own contribution It MIGHT be able to (if it got lucky) have sufficient funds on hand upon your retirement to buy 40% of your promised pension ….. yup THAT’S how grossly excessive is the “promise” that your Unions have successfully extracted from our Elected Officials (with Campaign Contributions and election support).

      (2) Quoting … “why would any public employee sit down at the table with this Gov”.
      Because you have no better options. There never was, is not now, and never will be sufficient funds to pay ANYWHERE NEAR what you have been “promised” ….. again, by Elected Officials that your Unions have successfully BOUGHT with Campaign Contributions and election support.

      ALL politicians lie …. perhaps even 1/4 as much as your Unions “lie”. So get off your high-and-mighty-horse (because you have none … an no better options), and start figuring out WHERE (pay, pensions, benefits) you want to take AT LEAST a 25% reduction in your total annual compensation.

      Your compensation for FUTURE service will not look anything like that for PAST Service ….. because there are NO OTHER OPTIONS.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on June 16, 2015 at 10:20 pm

        Seriously TO with CC gearing up for an attempt to occupy the White house who do you think will lead your fantasy pension reform?

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on June 16, 2015 at 10:58 pm

          Whomever has their head screwed on straight enough to realize that letting the little remaining pension assets run to zero …. would be FAR worse.

          The pensions WILL be reduced for the future service of CURRENT workers because NOTHING ELSE will work.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: