Trusting Murphy on Pensions

New Jersey’s next governor took a stance on the public pension issue when it came up at a town hall meeting last night. The key word…

Trust


.
In a perfect world we would have gotten some followup. The logical questions (in sequence if answered honestly):

  1. How much money are we talking about?
  2. Where is that money coming from?
  3. Are you nuts?

44 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on September 28, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    Murphy, the typical “politician”. He knows that he has no good answer to the question he was asked, so he talks around it, never answering the question. Why those doing the questioning always seem to allow this is bewildering.

    Perhaps one day we’ll get a questioner who won’t back off ……. repeating the question and asking that that SPCIFIC specific question be addressed.

    Reply

    • Lol!!!!! Here we are years later and you’re still at it Tough Love …however, nothing has changed. Nor will it.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on September 28, 2017 at 3:32 pm

        BH,

        EVERYONE is surprised by how successful the Public Sector Unions/workers have been in fending off meaningful pension reform.

        With the benefit of hindsight & reflection, we shouldn’t be too surprised given that those who would be called upon to implement such reforms (our Elected Officials) are the biggest source of the problem, and remain desirous of the Union money and support that gets them elected & reelected.

        Material Pension/Benefit reductions will come ……… just not clear how soon (and whether it will impact PAST as well as FUTURE service pension accruals). One think is all but certain………… being the unprotected/low-hanging-fruit, your retiree healthcare benefits will be first to go.

        Lol ………… Are you still posting under the handle ….”the Resident Nutcase” ?

        Reply

  2. Posted by George on September 28, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    Both candidates are in favor of the tunnels, which Gov Christie cancelled. Do the tunnels come back to life?

    Gateway vs ARC: Matters of Timing and Funding
    http://www.wnyc.org/story/gateway-vs-arc-matter-timing-and-funding/

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 28, 2017 at 4:06 pm

      Christie was CORRECT to reject the tunnel project as financially structured.

      PUBLIC Sector projects of that size routinely go WAY over budget …… think Boston’s “Big Dig”.

      As structured, tunnel funds were coming fund multiple sources (incl the Federal Gov’t), but the State of NJ (as well as contributing substantial funds) was the balancing item for ALL cost overruns. It’s not impossible such overruns could reach $5 Billion and add to the mountain of already-existing NJ debt.

      Christie would have been NUTS to move forward under that financial arrangement.

      Reply

      • Posted by George on September 28, 2017 at 5:10 pm

        I can’t see what changed that both candidates think they can build the tunnels. Murphy seems to think he can raise taxes for Pensions, Education, and Transit.

        Reply

  3. Posted by George on September 28, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    Watching the whole QA, The wackiest plan was the proposed ‘Bank of New Jersey’.

    Murphy’s public bank proposal garners praise and skepticism

    http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/04/murphys-bank-proposal-garners-skepticism-and-intrigue-111131

    Reply

  4. Posted by Tough Love on September 28, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    The article linked below shows one of the MANY ways that Taxpayers EVERYWHERE are ripped-off by the Pension structure set up for Public Sector workers…….

    http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/former-councilman-s-new-city-job-comes-with-big-pension/article_292d655e-a3e5-11e7-aedc-b7b1da5d8fe6.html

    In this example, we have a 63 year old Omaha Councilman (a part-time position) with 16 years of service (in that position) with current wages of $37.4K.. If he retired now his pension would be $13.2K .

    However, he was just given the job as director of the Human Rights and Relations Department with wages of $140K, and if he works for just 3 years (the duration of wages used in the DB pension calculation) his pension would jump to $57K/yr..

    What is the REAL cost to Taxpayers if he works for just 3 years (certainly a good possibility given that he would then be age 66)?

    Even if he receives ZERO raises over the 3 years, his wages would total 3x$140K=420K and the INCREASE in the value of his COLA-increased pension starting at $57K (using an annuity table appropriate this purpose) would be just about ($57K-$13.2K) x 14 = $613.2K. giving a grand total (wages + INCREASE in pension value) of $420K + $613.2K = $1,033.2K or $344.4K …PER YEAR !

    Now I’m sure some (almost all of whom would likely be Public Sector workers hoping for the same golden ring to one day be bestowed upon them) might argue …… why should someone qualified for the position NOT be considered because of his prior Public Service?

    Why ……………….. because financial reality cannot be ignored, and because all too often “connections” (not being the best candidate) is what gets one the position. And more importantly, because the pension structure itself is flawed by allowing and financially ENCOURAGING this abuse of the Taxpayers.

    And for those that call the $57K pension “modest”, remember that he was supposedly working in a real full-time job while a Councilman and saving for his own retirement during those 16 years (and hopefully for many years BEFORE that). The INCREMENTAL $613.3K to the value of his retirement for just 3 years of work is absurd.

    While I don’t know how many hours per week (or year) that Councilman works, in the Private Sector, DB pensions (where they still exist) rarely grant a year of service credit unless you have worked a minimum of 1,000 (verifiable) in the year. This criteria is used instead of an arbitrary dollar amount (which I believe is now $7,500/year in NJ) commonly used in the Public Sector, to make at least a MODEST attempt to limit pensions to full-time workers…………… and to avoid situations such as that described above (which would clearly be an unnecessary waste of the Company’s money)
    ***************************************************

    There are a number of long-term Councilmen/women in my town, and if I see such an abusive situation arise, I will certainly make the town’s citizenry aware of the cost……… BEFORE the position is filled.

    Reply

  5. Posted by Tough Love on September 29, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    Can’t help but post this guy’s incredibly well-stated comment here:

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article175980456.html

    **********************************************************

    John Bosch

    Public unions make end runs around democracy by negotiating with politicians they bought with union money …behind closed doors, outside the view of taxpayers… They serve but one purpose…to hold taxpayers hostage to their never ending demand for higher pay, better perks and pensions not attainable in the private sector…It’s a legal scam…If we’re all in this together…then public employees should be held to the same law as those they serve…Pay into Social security and save for retirement via a 401K account….What could be more fair?

    *************************

    Thank you !

    Reply

  6. Posted by Tough Love on September 29, 2017 at 4:33 pm

    Hows THIS for one of the most OUTRAGEOUS responses to a VERY important issue ………..

    When Phil Murphy as asked if would support ……….. renewing a 2 percent cap on raises that New Jersey police and firefighter unions can win through arbitration ………… he punted on that issue;

    From THIS article:

    http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/09/5_things_nj_governor_candidate_phil_murphy_said_at.html

    **************************************

    2. He punted on a much-talked-about issue.

    For weeks, Murphy has declined to say whether he will support renewing a 2 percent cap on raises that New Jersey police and firefighter unions can win through arbitration — a key issue as Christie’s administration comes to a close. On Wednesday, Murphy once again declined to take a stance.

    The cap is set to expire at the end of the year, and local leaders argue that property taxes will rise and services will be slashed if the state Legislature doesn’t renew it. Christie says he will sign a bill renewing it during the lame-duck session after Election Day if the Legislature sends him one. But Democratic leaders are waiting on instructions from Murphy.

    Murphy repeated Wednesday that he is waiting for the results of a report about the effectiveness of the cap, due by the end of the year.

    “Let’s wait until it comes out,” he said. “We will make a decision based on fact, taking all sides into consideration.”

    *******************************************
    Did you get that ???????????

    He wants to wait until the end of the year to respond ……. AFTER the vote for NJ’s next Governor.

    AFTER ??????????

    Why? Because he’s willing to end the cap to get the block votes of the Police and all their family members……….. and doesn’t give a crap about the financial impact upon NJ’s Taxpayers, that not holding a candle against his desire to be NJ’s next Governor. This is EXACTLY the type of Governor that NJ does NOT need.

    For YEARS ON END NJ taxpayers were abused with outrageous raises awarded by arbitrators with each town’s Union hop-scotching the last town to get a big raise (also via arbitration) in their demands.

    Taxpayers were ripped off for years. That’s why NJ’s LOWEST rank Police Officers often get $135+K in BASE PAY after just five years of service. And on top of that, a pension with a value upon retirement ROUTINELY 4+ times that typically granted a comparably situated (in wages, years of service, and age upon retirement) Private Sector worker.

    Taxpayer must DEMAND that this cap be retained.

    We can’t afford a Union-ass-kissing Governor !

    Reply

    • Posted by PS Drone on September 29, 2017 at 5:44 pm

      I used to laugh at some of the NJ corruption depicted on “The Sopranos”. Unfortunately, this Murphy character is right out of the TV show. All grins and glad handing but just another Jersey scumbag (albeit a carpetbag version). This State and all the morons who live here deserve everything that is coming down the fiscal pike.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on September 29, 2017 at 6:27 pm

        As a group Nj’s Taxpayers are incredibly “disengaged” to their own detriment ………. and the Public Sector Unions/workers and (as you stated) scumbag politicians take full advantage of that.

        Reply

  7. Posted by Tough Love on September 29, 2017 at 6:42 pm

    In a CNN article about Trump living in an alternate Universe it stated:

    “You can only live in a world of your creation for so long before fact-based reality bursts your bubble. The question for Trump is how long he can keep this up.”

    LOL, I could help seeing the obvious analogy:

    “You can only live in a world of your creation for so long before fact-based reality bursts your bubble. The question for Public Sector Unions/Workers is how long they can keep this up.

    Reply

  8. Posted by Anonymous on September 29, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    Here is the link to the current benefits available to state employees. In comparison to other top 500 corporations, it is only modest in its generosity.

    http://www.state.nj.us/health/hr/documents/benefits.pdf

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 29, 2017 at 7:48 pm

      WOW, you are either delusional, WAY too accepting of the BS that comes from your Union, a charlatan, or simply a knowing liar.

      NJ’s Public Sector workers (both State & LOCAL) get Final Average Salary Defined Benefit pension Plans………….. plans that are VERY VERY generous even when compared to the long gone Corporate-sponsored Private Sector DB Plans of yesteryear.

      You link shows essentially ZERO pension detail, simply stating ……… “PERS – The Public Employee’s Retirement System is a Reserve system with employer and employee contributions.” ………….. also conveniently ignoring the even richer Plans for NJ Safety workers.

      Here’s a quote from an recent article discussing the UPS decision to freeze it’s nonunion pension Plan:

      “Only 20% of Fortune 500 companies offered some sort of pension to new hires in 2015, down from 59% in 1998, according to a report from the research firm Willis Towers Watson.”

      And given that was for “new hires in 2015”, considering the trend, it’s likely about to 15% today. How does 15% in the LARGEST Corporate Plans compared to the near-universal DB coverage in the Public Sector.

      The Private Sector TODAY rarely gets more than their employer’s 6.2%-of-pay contribution towards Social Security on their behalf, plus a 2% to 4%-of-pay DC (401K) “match”…………….. with a VALUE rarely even 1/4 of that ROUTINELY granted Public Sector workers. For the lucky few who Private Sector workers who still participate in UNFROZEN DB Plans, the generosity of those Plans is TYPICALLY 1/2 (or less) than that granted NJ’s non-safety Public Sector workers, and 1/4 (or less) than that granted NJ’s Safety workers.

      And who today EXCEPT Public Sector workers gets employer-sponsored retiree healthcare benefits? The few in Corporate America who do, typically get it via a few hundred dollars per year contributed into a Health Savings Account … and that’s it …………… nothing like NJ TYPICAL retiree healthcare benefits, OFTEN worth $250K to $400K.
      **************************

      “modest in its generosity.”……….. my ass.

      Reply

  9. Posted by Earth on September 29, 2017 at 8:53 pm

    Earth to Tough Love:

    It’s nice to be important, but more important to be nice.

    Or civil, at least.

    Reply

  10. Posted by Tough Love on September 29, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    SMH,

    Ok, you’re RIGHT, some Private Sector workers ARE overcompensated …………..
    ***************************************************************

    “The Oklahoma City Thunder and Russell Westbrook agreed to terms Friday on a contract extension that places him in a league of his own.

    It’s a five-year, $205 million deal, according to ESPN.com’s Adrian Wojnarowski, which makes it the largest contract in NBA history.

    “**************************************************************

    The Unions can bring this up in their next RED-SHIRT/SIGN-WAVING protest.

    Reply

  11. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on September 30, 2017 at 12:56 am

    “…it’s tautologically impossible to *ever* be ‘screwed on pay’, in either the public or private sector.”

    Tom West

    SMH

    Reply

  12. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on September 30, 2017 at 1:07 am

  13. Posted by Tough Love on September 30, 2017 at 1:10 am

    You’re not quoting Albert Einstein, just some random Joe (or “Tom” …lol) who made that comment here:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/the_federal_pay.html

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 30, 2017 at 1:14 am

      Given the difficulty (changing that bulb), you’d think they would find one (of have one engineered) to last far longer.

      Hey ……… that was what YOU did working for Gubmint in CA (although not up there). Go for it.

      Reply

  14. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on September 30, 2017 at 1:21 am

    ” I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 30, 2017 at 1:52 am

      SMH,

      Prove it …………..

      Actively support and call for all retroactively applied Public Sector pension enhancements ……..which by being granted with ZERO “consideration” in return for that increase, was nothing but a THEFT of Private Sector Taxpayer wealth ……. to be REVERSED all the way back to the day they were granted.

      Reply

  15. Posted by Tough Love on September 30, 2017 at 6:07 pm

    WTF ……..

    https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2017/09/30/tax-payers-spent-more-than-dollar300000-to-send-trump-kids-on-ski-trip/23228319/

    He rails about his Cabinet appointee’s unnecessary Travel expenses, but THAT’s ok ?

    Reply

  16. Posted by Tough Love on October 1, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    Pasted from this source on the US Supreme Court docket to be heard starting this Monday:

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/01/supreme-court-opens-momentous-term-on-monday/23229102/
    ********************************************************************************
    Compulsory union fees

    In a case that could deal a crippling blow to unions representing millions of the nation’s public employees, the justices will decide whether state government workers who choose not to join a union must still pay a share of union dues to cover the cost of negotiating contracts. At stake is the future power and financial health of public sector unions in the 22 states where they have a duty to bargain for both members and non-members alike.

    Anti-union groups argue that requiring nonunion members to pay a portion of union dues forces them to endorse views they don’t agree with, violating their First Amendment rights. But the unions say negotiating contracts, which provide benefits to nonunion members as well, is expensive. They argue that the fees prevent “free riders.”
    **********************************************************************************

    Pray with me that payment of Unions dues can not longer be forced upon those who choose not to pay.

    While the issue at hand ….. Union views contrary to their own ……. is important, for me it’s the USE of Public Sector Union dues that is FAR FAR more of a problem, in that Public Sector Unions subvert democracy by BUYING the favorable votes of Elected Officials (on Public Sector pay, pensions, and benefits) with BRIBES disguised as Campaign contributions.

    Less dues will mean less money to continue with this bribery …….. a monumental abuse of Private Sector taxpayers.

    Reply

  17. Posted by Tough Love on October 2, 2017 at 8:15 am

    Excellent, easily followed article, and a solid source of unbiased information for those looking to understand the underlying reasons for the pension crisis impacting many States and Cities today:

    http://californiapolicycenter.org/fraudulently-low-normal-contributions-wreak-havoc-civic-finances/

    The only thing that stands out, is that Mr. Ring stops too soon, only identifying …….. the desire to keep employEE contributions as low as possible ……. as the reason for artificially keeping the Plan’s “Normal Cost” too low via the use of WAY to liberal valuation assumptions (i.e. too HIGH interest rates).

    I believe there is another MAJOR reason. Under a valuation using APPROPRIATE assumptions & methodology (ones comparable to those used in Private Sector Pension Plan valuations), the employEE-share of total Plan cost is RARELY more than 10%-20% with the employER (i.e., the Taxpayers) responsible for the 80% to 90% balance. Hence, if more APPROPRIATE (i.e., more conservative) assumption were used by Public Sector Plans, the Taxpayer contributions would go UP (in dollars) many times that of the employEEs. The Public Sector’s (i.e., the workers and their Union) REAL fear, is that if the TRUE (expected) cost of their Pension Plans were really known by taxpayers, taxpayers would realize how ludicrously generous they really are (when compared to what THEY typically get from their employers), and would JUSTIFIABLY demand that they be VERY materially reduced …….. assuredly for new workers, very likely for the future service of all current workers, and perhaps for those already retired,

    Reply

  18. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on October 4, 2017 at 12:56 am

    Ed Ring is hardly a source of unbiased information. No mention of the reason for the original unfunded liability… the huge loss of assets in 2008-2009. To correct for that loss would have required huge increases in contributions immediately. None of the local governments wanted that. Not because of some insidious cabal, but because all other expenses were increased and revenue decreased.
    No blood from a turnip.

    If the ” more conservative) assumption were used by Public Sector Plans, the Taxpayer contributions would go UP (in dollars) many times that of the employEEs.”… for a few years, then return to lower levels once the losses from the Greatest Recession were recouped.

    Pensions have been reduced for new workers. Not just to pre SB400 (1999) levels, but lower still. Costs for current workers going forward have been increased. And “those already retired” are virtually sacred.

    SMH

    Reply

  19. Posted by Tough Love on October 4, 2017 at 11:45 am

    SMH,

    We should consider the bias of authors and commentators ……….

    And when YOU say … “No mention of the reason for the original unfunded liability… the huge loss of assets in 2008-2009.” ……… rather than identifying the consequences of SB400 (and similar retroactively-applied pension increases) as the PRIMARY source of pension underfunding …….. how can the readers think that you are anything BUT biased ?

    *****************************************

    Yes ……… “Costs for current workers going forward have been increased. ” …….. but the the ludicrously excessive pension formula (3%@50 for some) didn’t get reduced. likely adding to the unfunded liability for the next 10, 15, 20, even 25 MORE years left in their careers.

    *******************************************

    You also stated …………… “Pensions have been reduced for new workers. Not just to pre SB400 (1999) levels, but lower still. ”

    While I seem to recall that Safety-worker pension did NOT go back to the 2% formula, right now I’m not sure and will look into that.

    I suggest that if it was incorrect, that you correct that statement before i do.

    *************************************

    And …………… “And “those already retired” are virtually sacred. ” ……… certainly won’t hold in some of the upcoming bankruptcy filings

    Reply

  20. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on October 4, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    State miscellaneous employees previous to 2000 had 2%@60… Changed to 2%@55 with SB400… Then to 2%@62 for new employees in 2013.

    CHP had 2%@50 (2.7%@55) pre 2000… Changed to 3%@50 with SB400… Then to 2.7%@57 (w/2%@50)

    With 2.7%@57, an officer can retire with 90% of FAS (max.) at 57 with 34 years.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/summary-pension-act.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiw6YH2rNfWAhUE3GMKHTvbAbQQFghcMAY&usg=AOvVaw3M1ld_uMlRATm-5iRYpTU3

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/state-safety-benefits.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjbvcujsdfWAhVS0WMKHQE8DtEQFggvMAI&usg=AOvVaw1jOP7WqSJC-FTk8WLcqgGX

    Reply

  21. Posted by Anonymous on October 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm

    “I suggest that if it was incorrect, that you correct that statement before i do.”

    Ooooh, HMS, you are on the chit list now!

    “i do” is gonna tie a knot in your tail.

    Reply

  22. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on October 4, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    Unfunded liabilities have increased in just about every state, city, county, private pensions, and most OECD countries. SB400 did not cause that. The only thing in common was The Crash (and ZIRP).

    Of course SMH is biased. “Truth, Justice, and The American Way”, that’s my bias.

    And “Moderation”, of course. Everything in Moderation. It’s not just a name, it’s a way of life.

    SMH

    Reply

  23. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on October 4, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Google “Global pension Crisis”

    “About 333,000 results (0.52 seconds)”

    SB400 did not do that.

    The “Powerful Public Employee Unions” (an oxymoron) did not do that.

    Pension reform is good. There are dozens of well documented methods to improve pension fairness and stability, and many of them do include pension reduction for some employees.

    Pension reduction alone is not the answer.

    So sayeth the Soul of Moderation…

    SMH

    Reply

  24. Posted by Tough Love on October 4, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    SHM, I see you’re on a roll………..

    OK, but are Taxpayers supposed to be giddy with Safety pensions:

    (1) remaining on the 3%@50 formulas for those hired before the changes (only about 5 years ago) for the remainder of their career ……… perhaps 25+ more years?

    (2) with the new formula for those hired after the changes (about 5 years ago) dropping to a formula that includes 2.7%@57 (with COLA increases)?

    The NEW formula is STILL at least 4 times greater in value upon retirement than the lucky few LARGE Corporate employers still offering DB pensions for employees who retire that the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service.

    And we’re tired of the PHONY BS that the greater pensions are justified because Police/Fire are paid less in wages than those in the Private Sector with comparable experience, education, skill, knowledge, AND job-risk.

    ***********************

    Quoting …………

    “Unfunded liabilities have increased in just about every state, city, county, private pensions, and most OECD countries. SB400 did not cause that. The only thing in common was The Crash (and ZIRP).”

    Anyone who doesn’t understand that SB400 (and similar retroactively-applied pension increases) created a HUGE and IMMEDIATE increase unfunded liability in CA is ……. what we now find out that Secretary of State Tillerson called Trump ….. a “moron”.

    Reply

  25. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on October 4, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    First, a reminder that the infamous “50% increase” was only for safety, and then only for a small fraction of those. Many safety workers had significant pension increases, but not 50%. And increases for miscellaneous employees were much smaller. CalPERS was well overfunded in 1998-2000, and for several years, taxpayers paid little or no contributions. After SB400… and the dot com crash… funding level dropped significantly (to 75-80%) and recovered to 100% by 2007.

    Even with SB400 in effect, the system had recovered. (No, not if measured by private sector pension standards. CalPERS is not a private sector system.)

    Are the taxpayers giddy? Not likely, but all taxpayers are not alike. Some are much more pragmatic. As we know, many are adamant about eliminating DB pensions…

    except for safety.

    John Moore and/or others have proposed reducing pay for all public workers by 15%, thus automatically (and legally) reducing pensions by a similar percentage. And the wage savings could be used to pay down the debt. I think the more pragmatic (moderate) taxpayers and local governments know that is a non-starter.

    There is huge pension debt. Which started in most every system at the same time. CalPERS lost over sixty million dollars. Which created a HUGE and IMMEDIATE increase unfunded liability in California.

    Reply

  26. Posted by Tough Love on October 4, 2017 at 11:31 pm

    Quoting SMH ………………. “CalPERS was well overfunded in 1998-2000”

    No SMH, CalPERS was NEVER overfunded using APPROPRIATE valuation assumptions & methodology (such as those those now employed by Moody’s or those required by the US Gov’t of Private Sector Plans), but only under the ultra-liberal (think PHONY) assumptions & methodology employed by Gov’t sector Plans to make their Plans look MUCH less costly than they really are.

    Similarly, funding ratios never reached anywhere near 100% (even in 2007) using APPROPRIATE assumptions & mythology ………. likely near 70% at it’s highest point.

    And no, CalPERS NEVER “recovered”.

    The great recession of 2008 certainly hurt all investors including CalPERS (and it was $60 Billion, not $60 Million).

    CalPERS dishonesty hit monumental levels with SB400. The Pension increases of SB400 and similar Local changes should be reversed ALL they way back to it’s implementation. RETROACTIVELY-applied pension increases being nothing but a THEFT of Private Sector Taxpayer wealth. WHEN (not IF) the next CA City goes into Bankruptcy, I hope those retroactive increases will be on the top of the list for elimination.

    Reply

  27. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on October 5, 2017 at 12:51 am

    THEFT, blah, blah, blah.

    Clearly it was not theft in the legal sense. With 20/20 hindsight, you may call it theft, but it was legally passed (almost unanimously) and signed by the governor. You can say it was fraud on the part of CalPERS, but you will never make a case. Those were very different times.

    There is obviously room for reform in public sector pensions, but they are not now and will never be subject to private sector rules and assumptions.

    It makes no sense whatsoever to be reversed ALL the way back to implementation. Every contract since SB400 has been negotiated with the consideration of those pension increases. Ed Mendel speculated on the need for wage increases to compensate for the lower pensions under PEPRA. Had SB400 not passed, presumably wages might have been increased in lieu.

    I have mentioned several times that PEPRA increased my pension by about 3%. If I had been granted a 3% increase instead of the increased pension formula, ceteris paribus, I would be much better off. I would still have the same pension, plus the advantage of the extra 3% for all those years between 2000 and retirement. Very much like a temporal paradox.

    If you would like to increase salaries retroactively, you might decrease pension formulas retroactively.

    Write 100 times…
    “Public pensions are not now and will never be subject to private sector rules and assumptions.’

    So sayeth the Soul of Moderation…

    SMH

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 5, 2017 at 8:11 am

      Yes SMH THEFT.

      THEFT orchestrated by the decades-long unholy alliance between the Public Sector Unions, the Union-controlled CalPERS, and Elected Officials beholden the the Public Sector Unions who support their election and reelection campaigns.

      Prison is the appropriate place for many of these actors.

      Reply

  28. Posted by Earth on October 5, 2017 at 10:57 am

    Earth to Tough Love:

    Tell it to the judge.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 6, 2017 at 10:07 am

      Soon enough, FEDERAL Bankruptcy Court judges will be telling it to BOTH active and retireed Public Sector workers.

      “What CAN’T be paid, WON’T be paid”

      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: