State COLA-Theft Defense Raises More Questions

Defined Cost-of-living-adjustments were always a part of a public retiree’s pension in New Jersey (holding a prominent place in the handbook-definition of the pension a retiree could expect) but now that the state pension will be going broke shortly COLAs are a target that the state’s lawyers are aiming at as they argue in the kick-off to their latest brief:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

No one disputes that the retirees in these consolidated cases have a non-forfeitable right to their base pensions. The State reiterates that it is not walking away from this obligation and will continue to pay these benefits when due. These cases deal with the entirely distinct question of whether retirees have a non-forfeitable right to a cost-of- living adjustment (“COLA”) to those base pensions. They do not. Plaintiffs are demanding that the State keep a promise it never made.

They go on for scores of pages defending this position while raising some disturbing questions:

  1. “No one disputes the retirees have a non-forfeitable right to their base pensions” IN THIS CASE. But what about the next one as the State, out of necessity, seeks to redefine the term “base pension” again?
  2. If the State never promised to pay COLAs then why did they?
  3. Would the State be entitled to get back from retirees the $20 billion or so that has already been paid out in COLAs over the life of the plans?

New Jersey’s position is indefensible but lawyers paid to put up a defense will distract from the obvious and create enough doubts so a majority of the politican-appointed judges hearing this case can agree with them.

 

83 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on October 15, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    Quoting TL from this blog’s two most recent previous posts:

    1. “freezing these Plans means that many would lose 1/3 + of what they “anticipated” getting ……… and some will be so pissed-off that they might resort to threatening our lawmakers if they take such actions”

    2. “When the State Plans have zero assets in about 5 years, to continue “paying” full benefits will require an ADDITIONAL $8+ Billion in tax increases. There is not a snowballs chance hell that that will happen.
    I believe that the “State” knows that, but for THIS (the COLA) challenge they are putting that very major problem aside …… for THIS fight..”

    TL considering your first quoted text, what do you think these same individuals will do based on your second quoted text – exactly!

    Reply

  2. Posted by Tough Love on October 15, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    #3 would be nice ….

    After all, PRIVATE Sector pensions almost NEVER include automatic annual Cola-increase provisions.

    What makes PUBLIC Sector workers so “special” that only THEIR pensions should include a a provision that (by itself) increases the value of (and hence the cost of) their pension by 25% to 35% over an otherwise identical pension but without a COLA-increase provision ?

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 15, 2015 at 6:59 pm

      Quoting TL, 3. would be nice. C.78 suspended future COLAs but kept intact accrued COLAs as of July 1, 2011. Why didn’t current retiree’s benefits get reduced to their base allowance?

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 15, 2015 at 7:50 pm

        That would be nice too …. Private Sector workers never got such pension increases.

        Reply

        • Posted by Soon to retire Pat on October 15, 2015 at 8:42 pm

          Social Security recipients have, with the exception of this year, always received an annual COLA indexed to inflation. This is not something unusual. It is the way it should be. Are you willing to advocate SS benefits will never increase once the base rate is determined?

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 15, 2015 at 9:02 pm

            If I may be so bold – no it’s not TL:

            Federal pensions, especially Armed Forces are different, no Republican wants to screw themselves out of that voter base. Besides that cost is spread over a larger tax base and the Feds can always print money.

            As to SS benefits, most not all anti public’s here would ascert it’s doomed as well, not a question of if but when.

            It’s really a Tea Party doomsday mentailty, just watch the Ron Paul economic hype video.

            Stock up on your survival supplies and gold; sell the house and move be to a cave!

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 15, 2015 at 9:07 pm

            I’m not talking about SS, but about Public Sector employer-sponsored vs Private Sector employer-sponsored pensions.

            SS is a different animal …. and available to BOTH Sectors. And for Public Sector workers who don’t get SS, it’s because they also don’t pay for it.

          • Bad comparison. Average SS benefit is around $1500/month and you can’t get that until a minimum age of 62. A bit different from high 5 figure or low 6 figure pensions that you can start collecting when you are 52, or 55 or 58. Move all drones to collecting when they are 62 (with similar haircuts from 66 as SS) and we can talk COLA. Otherwise you can forget about one iota of private sector support for any such thing.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 3:48 pm

            Well-said PSDrone.

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 15, 2015 at 8:17 pm

      almost never, a real oxymoron

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm

        In response to an earlier comment about stashing gold, may I suggest a different “precious” metal– lead. As in lead bullets. That is what you will need and the guns that shoot them, if this doomsday scenario such as stocking food, worthless real estate etc, ever became a reality. And since it hasn’t already- I doubt it will in our lifetime.
        But if it did, your gold bars will be absolutely worthless except to smack someone over the head with ,who is trying to harm you. In reality, gold as an investment sucks.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2015 at 12:19 pm

          Hmm guess those public safety worker’s WILL be excluded from P&B reform – it’s a matter of national security!

          Reply

    • Posted by PatB on October 16, 2015 at 12:07 am

      And is every taxpayer collecting social security so special that they are not entitled to a cola? (this year excepted, as per recent news).

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 12:35 am

        Private Sector employer-sponsored pensions DO NOT include COLAs while Public Sector employer sponsored pensions DO ……. with PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers paying for 80-90% of the total cost of Public Sector pensions.

        EVERYONE (BOTH Public and Private) on SS get the same COLAS.
        ————————————————

        You have a “greed” problem if you think that that is fair or appropriate.

        Reply

      • Posted by Javagold on October 16, 2015 at 1:24 am

        You are forgetting that this year is the 3rd time out of the past 5 years that COLA is ZERO (all under Obama of course) for all Social Security recipients.

        Tough Luck to all public takers. Take a look at Illinois to see your future of IOUs.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on October 18, 2015 at 6:33 am

          The Congress holds the US purse strings not the White House. There is a set of indicators tied to if AS recipients receive cola’ s, the benchmark wasn’t reached to trigger an increase in 2016.

          Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on October 18, 2015 at 8:30 pm

          Yeah like the GOP is willing to spend, except on defense.

          Reply

  3. Posted by Anonymous on October 15, 2015 at 9:30 pm

    Ah yes Fair and Equal for ALL, sounds rather socialist to me – Walker indeed, go Bernie! More like the chilush mentailty what’s mine is mine and what’s theirs is mine – if I can’t have it nobody can, on and on and on!!!

    Reply

  4. Posted by dentss dunigan on October 16, 2015 at 10:35 am

    Sounds like if the courts agree that COLA doesn’t have to be paid the state will claw back the 20 billion already paid out when they never should have .That could reduce checks considerably for older retirees but extend the life of the fund .

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2015 at 11:00 am

      Yes it would but the ruling would never be retroactive. The State paid what at the time was promised and available. I could see terminating the accrued COLAs as of 7/1/2011, which the State/Locals have continued to pay subsequent to c.78.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2015 at 12:16 pm

      Your comment highlights your ignorance on the topic!!!

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 1:15 pm

        “!!!”

        That you BH ? Thought you switched to “The Resident Nutcase” ?

        Reply

        • Posted by ~The Resident Nutcase on October 16, 2015 at 3:13 pm

          The denial that our numbers are growing is staggering. She continues to think all the anons are one person. Lol.
          Such a feable attempt to subconsciously try and convince those watching (and probably herself), that they are in fact winning. Lol such a shame.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 3:33 pm

            Your #s are growing …… LOL. Do you think the commentary on this site will actually be the straw that changes things ?

            Of course not. I comment here because:

            (1) I understand the financial aspects of pensions (and the VERY dire implications of our current situation) better than anyone here but our web-host, Mr. Bury
            (2) As a Taxpayer, I am fed-up with the decades-long financial “mugging” perpetrated upon Private Sector taxpayers via our Campaign-contribution-BOUGHT-OFF Elected Officials’ granting of these grossly excessive Public Sector pensions and benefits, and
            (3) uninformed readers (BOTH Public and Private) have a right to hear the TRUTH, not the Public Sector Union propaganda.

  5. Posted by ~The Resident Nutcase on October 16, 2015 at 11:15 am

    There will be no claw backs of the COLA.

    Reply

    • Posted by dentss dunnigan on October 16, 2015 at 6:02 pm

      If the courts rule against COLA ,they never should have been paid to start with ,If I was in the pension system I would sue to see the funds are returned to the people still in the fund 20 billion would cover another 2 plus years of issuing pension checks

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 18, 2015 at 8:36 pm

        Is that the issue at hand? I don’t think so. Maybe the State could go back to court on a subsequent filing but right now the issue is should they continue.

        Reply

  6. Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2015 at 11:22 am

    Why does anyone argue with TL. I am sure if we ignore her she will go away. She craves negative attention.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 1:20 pm

      You pay attention because you know (as unpalatable to you as it may be) that what I state is accurate ….. and are VERY concerned that the pension/benefit reductions that I see as necessary, just, fair, and unavoidable will indeed take place.

      Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 16, 2015 at 1:35 pm

      Nobody argues with TL with the hope of changing his/her mind, but TL is putting out misleading information on websites all over the country, and someone needs to correct that.

      It is very trying.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 3:10 pm

        You and I disagree on many aspects of pension reform.

        With MY simply being a well-informed taxpayer fed-up with the enormous financial “mugging” of Private Sector Taxpayers via over-compensating Public Sector workers via grossly excessive pensions & benefits, and YOU being a California Public Sector retiree riding this gravy train ………….. who has a bigger vested interest in distorting the truth ?

        Reply

      • I think I know what you mean by misleading:

        Public Drones: Pensions are constitutionally guaranteed and therefore will be paid regardless of the status of the separate accounts available to fund them. If need be taxes will be raised to whatever level necessary to continue to fully pay them. And, by the way, all such pensions are more than deserved and just; they represent deferred compensation to our most valuable citizens who bravely serve the public and risk their lives 7 by 24 and need to be able to retire in their early to mid 50’s at taxpayer expense, blah blah blah.

        TL: There ain’t enough $ to fund pensions in perpetuity so all drones should prepare for a soon to be realized lightening of the pension envelope. And, by the way, the pensions are ridiculously generous and were one of many schemes hatched by the corrupt and self serving public sector to pay for votes from union voting bases and feather their own nest at the same time.

        Reply

        • Posted by ~The Resident Nutcase on October 16, 2015 at 7:58 pm

          Your Public Drones piece is spot on and accurate. Wish you would have continued though…instead of the blah blah blah. The TL piece is the same tired bloated BS!

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 9:30 pm

            The Resident Nutcase,

            Too bad you can’t recognize sarcasm, particularly this part ….. quoting from PSDrone’s comment:

            “And, by the way, all such pensions are more than deserved and just; they represent deferred compensation to our most valuable citizens who bravely serve the public and risk their lives 7 by 24 and need to be able to retire in their early to mid 50’s at taxpayer expense,”

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm

        Agreed SMD, for example;

        TL and devout followers; individuals presenting a right wing conservative perspective based on half-truths and lies.

        TL continual posts repetitive misinformation citing sources with extreme ideology. Yet sumarial dismisses other posts with conflicting opinions and sources.

        Specifically, purposely misstated the tax status of public pensions in the following post; https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/christie-curses-out-nj-media/#comments When called to task tried to double talk their way out of it. Standard operating procedure for most of their commentary.

        Fair and equal for all is the mantra. Fair enough, but not when I suggest Federal workers and members of our beloved Armed Forces be part of the bigger conversation. The response, they’re different. But why, because they risk their lives like first responders at home. Their DBP are paid with Federal tax dollars as opposed to State or Local. Everyone knew the job risks when they accepted employment. But they also knew what their salary, pension, and benefits were supposed to be.

        UPDATE: TL and supporters recant their support for Armed Forces and reiterate their disdain for first responders at home and abroad. Basically anyone receiving a public sector DBP. Another example of their double talk further diminishing their credibility. Don’t take my word, click on the blog link and confirm for yourself;
        https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/phonying-up-numbers-to-suit-your-client/#comments

        To blame and demonize public workers for the current situation is unfair and untrue. Do politicians make “deals” with unions that don’t always have the taxpayers best interest? I think everyone knows the answer to that is yes. But politicians are always making “deals” it’s what they do. Just ask the various segment market corporations; defense spending (lucrative contracts), farming (subsidies) and the list goes on and on.

        Your bully tactics and demeaning attitude only motivate me more to push back your parties ridiculous vision for NJ and America. Yes I’m sure John knows all of our IP address, so you and your business name can be exposed as well.

        The purpose of continually posting this comment is to allow the counterpoint perspective to be heard. I will no longer personally engage your comments tit for tat.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 6:00 pm

          If you want my opinion on specific questions …. ask me.

          I demonize nobody, but strongly advocate to end the current DB Plans for the future service of all CURRENT State and Local Public Sector workers…… because they are SOOOO grossly excessive that there is no way to “reform them” (meaning bring them down to the level typically granted comparable Private Sector workers) and remain as Traditional-style DB Plans.

          The Federal Gov’t DB Pension Plans “should” also end and be replaced with DC Plans, but, having a printing press (albeit, one out-of-control) they have options that the States and Cities do not.

          Reply

        • Posted by Lukeu on October 18, 2015 at 9:53 pm

          Well stated Anon. TL is just pushing the right wing agenda of the Koch brothers.

          Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2015 at 5:27 pm

        Come on out TL’ers guns ablazing!!!

        Reply

  7. Posted by ~The Resident Nutcase on October 16, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    Not me…dumb dumb. Lol. You just don’t stop do you. These multiple and ever growing anons are not me, nor one person, as your conspiracy theory mentality would suggest.
    But by all means….. Go on

    Reply

  8. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 16, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    Means, motive, opportunity.

    Shelby Foote, “The Civil War,”

    “Early on in the war, a Union squad closed in on a single ragged Confederate. He didn’t own any slaves, and he obviously didn’t have much interest in the Constitution or anything else. And they asked him, What are you fighting for? And he said, ‘I’m fighting because you’re down here.’ “”

    Long ago, on a web site faraway, S Moderation Douglas (AKA Douglas47) read this statement:

    “And Skippy, You don’t like what I have to say ….. that with Public Sector workers earning no less in cash pay than their Private Sector counterparts, there is ZERO justification for ANY greater pensions or benefits, let alone ones that are MULTIPLES greater in value at retirement … as is the case today.”

    (Calwatchdog, 15 July, 2013)
    …………………………….
    I don’t care what your motives are, or how “well-informed” you think you are, but that statement, and many similar from other posters, is just wrong.

    Misstatements like this and many others are the reason S Moderation is monitoring the web. I am posting because there are gross misrepresentations running amok. ‘I’m fighting because you’re down here.’

    Fair and balanced!!!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 7:36 pm

      SMD,

      The AEI Study quoted here repeatedly does show a PUBLIC Sector “cash pay” DISADVANTAGE of 12%-of-pay in CA and 4% in NJ, one that on a Total Compensation” basis (including “cash pay”, pensions, and benefit) shifts to a 23% PUBLIC Sector ADVANTAGE … rising to 34% if the far greater incremental value of Public Sector job security is included in the comparison.

      Additionally, the AEI study excludes all Safety workers who have far greater than average “cash pay”, and (by far) the richest pension and benefits. While I don’t know if including them would have entirely eliminated the Public Sector “cash pay” disadvantage, it certainly would have made it considerably smaller. And the 23% Public Sector “Total Compensation” ADVANTAGE would rise risen considerably.

      True fairness would suggest that you should be advocating for material Public Sector “Total Compensation” reductions (perhaps not for everyone, but for the entire group of Public Sector workers taken as a whole). Instead you fight every MEANINGFUL attempt to rectify this injustice perpetrated against Private Sector Taxpayers.
      ——————————-
      EQUAL, but NOT better.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2015 at 9:51 pm

        You poor little 1%’er, allegedly advocating for a class of people you are not by perpetuating your slanted perspective using right wing conservative sources!!!

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 9:55 pm

          Nope, not in the 1% by either income or net worth. …. just smart, well-informed, and fed-up with the decades-long financial “mugging” of Private sector taxpayers by the insatiably greedy Public Sector Unions/workers and enabled by Elected Officials BOUGHT-OFF with Public Sector Union camapign contributions and election support.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2015 at 8:19 am

            PLEASE and I just sold you the Brooklyn bridge!!!

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2015 at 8:22 am

            Right and Krispy Kreme doesn’t think he is either – comparisons are indisputable!!!

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 17, 2015 at 8:53 am

             Public Sector Unions should not be allowed to make camapign contributions.

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2015 at 10:47 am

            Don’t disagree, just to be fair and equal only individuals (with $ limit) should be able to contribute. No entities, ie corporations, super PACs etc.

            Better yet fund through Federal, State, and Local taxes, preset decreasing dollar amount based on position (POTUS, Governor, Mayor, etc.) that person running has to personally match or raise from individual fully disclosed contributions.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2015 at 11:44 am

            WOW …. a few intelligent replies.

            And SMD, finally something that we agree upon, quoting your reply …..”Public Sector Unions should not be allowed to make camapign contributions.”

            And taking it further (and to be “fair”) Corporations also should NOT be allowed to contribute, only individuals with a low (perhaps $1000) annual limit.

            You see, I do advocate for fair and equal.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 17, 2015 at 12:39 pm

            Sarchasm

            I was just mocking your spell checker.

            Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2015 at 12:37 am

            What’s “chilush” ?

            What’s “camapign” ?

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2015 at 4:22 pm

            SMD that’s a good one!
            But just to be Fair TL doesn’t real mean Equal.

            Their misspellings are acceptable while others (especially opposing views) are not. Well fair and equal sounds like a catchy mantra anyway but in reality…..

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 17, 2015 at 8:19 am

        Tough Love

        “True fairness would suggest that you should be advocating for material Public Sector “Total Compensation” reductions (perhaps not for everyone, but for the entire group of Public Sector workers taken as a whole). Instead you fight every MEANINGFUL attempt to rectify this injustice perpetrated against Private Sector Taxpayers.”
        ………………
        If by MEANINGFUL you mean to reduce the future accrual of ALL public sector workers by at least 50 percent, yes, I oppose that. It is simplistic, unfair, and unworkable.

        S Moderation is 100 percent in favor of truly meaningful reform based on actual verifiable data and logically derived compensation principals.

        The nationwide data very clearly shows that the lowest two quintiles of public workers have a compensation advantage over their private sector peers, due to pension costs and healthcare costs. With these workers excluded from the calculations, there would be NO average public sector compensation advantage. NONE!!!

        I find this fascinating, and for some time I hinted at it but was very reluctant to state it directly. Because instead of analyzing the reasons for this and considering the costs and benefits, there is always some idiot who would automatically take from the poorest to give to the slightly less poor.

        Meaningful reform does not necessarily mean everyone is equal.

        Everything in Moderation.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2015 at 11:53 am

          By meaningful, I mean that adjusted for verifiable differences in “cash pay” (up or down), taxpayers should contribute no more toward Public Sector pensions and benefits than what reasonably comparable Private Sector workers get from their employers.

          For some (definitely including safety workers), that would indeed require reductions greater than 50%.
          ———————-

          Quoting ….. “Meaningful reform does not necessarily mean everyone is equal. ”

          Of course I don’t expect perfect equality, but right now, the 23% PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage in CA and NJ amounts to an ENORMOUS financial “mugging” of Private Sector Taxpayers, and it must end, for the future service of ALL State and Local Public Sector workers.

          Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 17, 2015 at 8:50 am

        Oh, the irony.

        From a recent Marin IJ tirade:

        Reality Checker • 6 days ago

        “….. The biggest challenge faced by top level government workers is how to keep increasing their pay while using the pay of the low level workers for cover…..”
        ……………

        Jody Morales • 6 days ago

        “What I cannot figure out is why the rank and file workers, represented by MAPE, are not in full rebellion.”

        __________________________________________________________
        Maybe, Jody, because the rank and file workers actually earn more in total compensation than they would in the private sector, and the top level government workers earn much less than their peers in the private sector.

        There be some income redistribution happenin’. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Not necessarily a bad thing.

        MEANINGFUL reform?

        Do we REALLY want to take from the poorest to give to the slightly less poor?

        Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

        Let God sort them out.

        In Moderation

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2015 at 11:57 am

          Sorry, but just as the Private Sector doesn’t pay unskilled labor $75K in pay, pensions, and benefits, neither should the Public Sector (primarily via taxation of the Private Sector).

          Reply

      • Obviously SMD has retired way too early and has way too much time on his hands as he stated he “monitors the web” in regard to pension issues. Way too funny. Nothing to do and all day to do it. No thanks! This blog is enough “web” for me. As I have stated many times, regardless of one’s occupation, retirement was never meant to be a 30 year vacation paid for by someone else.

        Reply

  9. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 17, 2015 at 7:19 am

    Even as we speak. There are a couple of rags reporting a “study” by the Cato Institute on federal workers:

    “Here’s a stunning finding: Federal employees on average earned 78 percent more in total compensation than comparable private sector workers in 2014.”

    http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2015/10/the-real-pay-gap-is-between-public-and-private-sector-workers/
    ……………………..
    S Moderation to the rescue. These are not “comparable workers”. This is the oldest apples/oranges gaffe around; comparing the “average” public sector to the “average” private sector worker.

    At least this “study” so far has only been reported by local yokul “sources”.

    Recently Breitbart misquoted the BLS ECEC report by claiming state and local workers earn 45% more than the private sector. (BLS specifically cautions against making this direct comparison.)

    And in the Wall Street Journal, no less, Stephen Moore grossly misquotes the CBO by claiming that federal workers earn 50 percent more than the private sector.

    S Moderation Douglas is here to point out that these claims are flat WRONG. The only question in these cases is; are the sources devious, or just dumb?

    S Moderation Douglas
    ‘I’m fighting because you’re down here.’

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      Too bad we can’t lock all these Study “scholars into one room and refuse to let them out until they all agree on ONE set of study results …….LOL

      Reply

    • SMD If the publication was in favor of the current pension system and in favor of maintaining the obviously sinking system would you still consider it a “rag” ??

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 19, 2015 at 3:42 pm

        A rag is a no-name newspaper or web site with no reputation, therefore nothing to lose. I often disagree with the Wall Street Journal, but have never called it a rag. I often disagree with Breitbart, which did carry this headline but…. OK, Breitbart is a rag.

        On the subject at hand, here is a quote from Andrew Biggs in Forbes (also not a rag):

        “A new report from the Cato Institute concludes that federal government employees are paid salaries 78% higher than the average private sector worker. That’s the number that’s generating headlines. And it’s basically wrong.”

        “If Women Are Underpaid By 23%, Then Federal Employees Are Overpaid By 78%” Forbes, Oct.9,2015

        Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 19, 2015 at 7:12 pm

        ” If I were a federal employee, I would push back HARD on the 78% headline pay difference number.”

        Andrew Biggs

        Reply

  10. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 17, 2015 at 7:39 am

    Holy Holes in Doughnuts, Batman!!!

    As SurfPuppy says, “S Moderation Douglas is wrong”

    I thought the federal pay story was just local yokul stuff because those were the ones cited by pensiontsunami.

    Apparently that farce is all over the web.

    Breitbart… again, not too breit.

    FEDERAL WORKERS EARN 78% MORE THAN PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES, STUDY SHOWS
    …………..
    Washington Monthly…….when you use the word “whopping”, doesn’t that suggest you should do due diligence in verifying your story?

    “The Cato Institute has generated big headlines with its new study claiming that federal employees are paid a whopping 78 percent more than private-sector workers.”

     “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Carl Sagan
    …………………….

    S Moderation Douglas
    ‘I’m fighting because you’re down here.’

    Reply

  11. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 17, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Interesting coincidence?

    At the same time the Cato Institute is getting press for it’s “whopping” 78 percent federal pay advantage, TransparentCalifornia is doing the same thing, with a twist.

    Instead of comparing “average” public to “average” private compensation, (which does indicate a 40 to 45 percent public sector advantage) they are comparing “average” public …pensions… to average private …salaries… . Since full career public pensions are typically 80 percent of FAS, or higher, one would expect those pensions to be higher than private salaries. And they are, by about 20 percent statewide, with variations from area to area within the state.

    Basically they are again comparing compensation between different levels of employees, producing much more heat than light.

    Credit where credit is due, some of the articles carrying the Cato 78 percent story, do explain the discrepancy and give the more accurate CBO or AEI comparisons. If you bother to actually read their columns all the way through.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 18, 2015 at 10:07 am

      It’s ironic the Gov’s strong point has become his weakness. It will negatively impact his supporters at the polls at least this November, possibly beyond if party puppets continues.

      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: