Murphy’s Pension Plan: Find Some Money

There will be a gubernatorial election in about two weeks and this is what passes for discussing serious issues:
.

.
With government revenue you can only ‘find’ money by ‘taking’ it from someone and ‘tens of billion of dollars’ is a lot to ‘find’.

Here are the full 4 minutes allocated to the pension issue:

29 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 12:12 am

    Two things:

    (1) Phil Murphy is so far up the Public Sector Union asses it’s amazing he’s taken seriously.

    (2) No, we should NOT honor a commitment that was a THEFT from the taxpayers, a THEFT because the only reason the Public Sector workers were granted such ludicrously excessive pensions and benefits was because there was an understanding between the Unions and our Elected Officials … …..we (the Elected Officials) give you these really rich pensions & benefits, and you (the Public Sector Unions) fund our election and re-election campaigns, and support us with block voting from the Union members and their families.

    There is WAY more than sufficient justification to RENEGE on the 50+% of the promised pensions and benefits that assuredly would NOT have been granted in the absence of this THEFT.

    Reply

    • Posted by NJ2AZ on October 23, 2017 at 1:11 am

      i keep saying: it’ll be interesting when a new generation tax payers wakes up and wonders why they are paying for promises they didn’t make. at that point, game over man.

      Reply

    • Posted by MJ on October 23, 2017 at 6:00 am

      Repudiate the debt

      Reply

    • Posted by George on October 23, 2017 at 10:11 am

      So what should Murphy say? He is trying to get elected. One theory might be is he doesn’t need that job, so once elected he can be independent. Or maybe he will represent NY hedge fund and real estate interests and pour money into hedge funds and the tunnel. According to founding father Muphy you either owe someone a lot of money or they owe you a lot of money, and he wants that written into the constitution.

      Murphy vs Guadagno websites:

      Murphy:
      “a constitutional amendment guaranteeing state pension contributions should be part of the solution – but the solution must be comprehensive and ensure a reasonable payment schedule.”
      https://www.murphy4nj.com/issue/state-pensions/

      Kim for more of the same as Christie, but I like it when she talks jargon:
      “Transferring the management of the Police and Firemen’s pension system to a risk-bearing entity”
      http://www.kimfornj.com/fix_pension_and_health_benefits

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 10:24 am

        Except when you dug into the details when that transfer was initially proposed:

        (a) there was no investment rick-transfer to the Unions, and

        (b) “Manage” didn’t just mean selecting the investment of assets, but full control over the richness of their pensions and the employee contribution rate. Talk about the fox running the hen-house.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous 8 on October 23, 2017 at 10:36 am

          Christie vetoed the Police & Firemen pension control bill because it kept all the risk with taxpayers and allowed the unions to increase pensions to whatever they wanted.

          Guadagno’s line “risk bearing entity” makes her stance different from the legislature’s stance. I assume she would want control over pension generosity to continue with the state too, since the original Police & Firemen’s bill was such a victimization of NJ taxpayers.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 10:54 am

            Guadagno is playing a careful game of ….. be different than Murphy, but DON”T piss off the Unions.

            Sure, she says NJ’s pension problem must be addressed, but every time she says it she includes a comment that we must “negotiate” changes with the Unions.

            NJ’s insatiably greedy Unions will only “give-back” things of immaterial financial magnitude. If we want REAL reform, it will have to be FORCED upon them.

  2. Hey John, what buzz is there if any in NJ on the subject of bankruptcy-for-states or some similar legislation to address pensions? In IL, some of the discussion has now gone public as reported here: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/illinois-playbook/2017/10/23/politico-illinois-playbook-rauner-wants-second-term-governor-lobbying-congress-to-revamp-state-pensions-fioretti-v-preckwinkle-222930

    Reply

    • Posted by George on October 23, 2017 at 10:17 am

      If people vote for the NY State constitutional convention something might change there. It might be the case that NY State kept up much better with pension obligations because every 20 years they might have a constitutional convention.

      Reply

    • Mark, unfortunately we are in election season so nothing is being seriously discussed. All Murphy is focused on is getting elected so it is not to his advantage to honestly assess the pension situation.

      Reply

  3. Posted by Patrick Whalin on October 23, 2017 at 10:26 am

    As a recently retried PW I certainly have a biased opinion on the issue. A more reasonable fix might be; anyone currently retired or who retire within the next 365 days (time to plan) will not be effected in any way. Those who choose not to retire and those who stay will have their medical benefits reduced to a typical “silver” plan; They can not accumulate more than 1 years worth of unused sick/vacation pay (and then only at the rate earned at the time); All current pension credits and formulas will “freeze” and a new formula for future years will include up to 5% of current salary to be contributed by the state into a 401K plan but only if “matched” by the employee. And some other stuff

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 11:14 am

      Your ONLY really good suggestion is the freezing of the current DB Plans for CURRENT workers.

      1 year of unused SICKTIME payout. It’s rarely more than ZERO in the Private Sector.

      An employer-sponsored “silver level” healthcare Plan (presumably paid for by the Taxpayers). No, for those who participate in Social Security and are eligible for Medicare, how about NOTHING, because that is what almost all Private Sector workers get. And if a Public Sector workers retires before age 65, that should be THEIR problem ….. just like it now is for Private Sector workers.

      ____________________________________________________

      Yes, your opinion is biased.

      Reply

      • Posted by Earth on October 23, 2017 at 12:36 pm

        Earth to Tough Love:

        “Yes, your opinion is biased.”

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 2:11 pm

          Biased how ………… by being a well-informed NJ Taxpayer who is fed-up with the decades-long financial rape that has bee perpetrated upon NJ’s Taxpayers by the insatiably greedy Public Sector Unions/Workers, and enabled by out Union-BOUGHT Elected Officials ?

          Reply

          • Posted by Earth on October 23, 2017 at 5:20 pm

            Your go-to assumption is that all public employees are overpaid and/or over benefitted (LUDICROUSLY). You have consistently taken that position in responding to debates without ever even bothering to verify the facts. As in Kentucky, where the ROOT CAUSE of the pension crisis is…
            DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER.

            According to the best/only data available, total compensation for KY public workers is “market value”, but of course, the “reasonable” course of action is to reduce their compensation further?

            Your adamant claim that NJ state highway workers have higher salaries and MULTIPLES higher pensions than the private sector workers. Never mind that a simple web search belies that position, but your defense is that you “weren’t thinking” about union plans and have more experience with private sector single employer plans. You cannot ignore one fourth of private sector pensions just because you don’t have much experience or knowledge.

            And Public-Employee Unions are certainly not pure as the driven snow, but logic dictates they are no more GREEDY or underhanded than any other special interest group.

            If you think you are not biased, you’re delusional.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 6:06 pm

            Earth (or S Moderation Douglas, or S Moderation Honesty, or S Moderation Anonymous or Stephen Douglas, or whoever you chose to post under today),

            As I stated above, I post simply as a well-informed, fed-up NJ Taxpayer CLEARLY seeing and understanding the extent and impact of the Public Sector’s rip-off of NJ’s Taxpayers via Total Compensation packages (wages + pension + benefits) that are materially greater than those of COMPARABLE Private Sector workers …………. 23%-of-pay greater per the AEI Study, and assuredly higher if the highest paid & pensioned category on NJ workers (Public Safety) were not excluded from that study.

            You on the other hand have BOTH of your feet in this pot, being a retired CA Public Sector worker.

            Who has more reason to misinform, distort, omit material facts, and lie ?

          • Posted by Anonymous (NOT Earth... the other Anonymous) on October 23, 2017 at 7:10 pm

            Voici la difference,

            You believe certain NJ public workers have higher pay and (MULTIPLES) higher pensions. So you SCREAM it out with dead certainty.
            To S Moderation Douglas, that claim is (highly) suspect, so he does a simple web search. Sorry, that was your bias speaking.

            Someone else claims that “public workers retire 10-15 years earlier” than the private sector. That does not concur with S Moderation Honestly’s personal, admittedly anecdotal experience, so he checks with Gallup and Census data and finds that is an exaggeration, even for safety workers, on average.

            Benefits, benefits, benefits. It is “common knowledge” that public sector workers “have incredible amounts of paid leave/time off;” (SurfPuppy619, among numerous others. Don’t bother checking that out folks, just repeat it every chance you get, and embellish it if you wish. Yet, according to the “biased” S Moderation Anonymous, and according to Andrew Biggs, and according to the BLS, it is just another apocryphal talking point.

            You constantly SCREAM that Public Sector Unions are a CANCER upon society. Stephen Douglas says that those unions, those employees, are materially no more nor no less GREEDY than any other special interest group. Shortly after Governor Brown authorized collective bargaining for state employees, we were given six months to join the Union. I waited until the last minute, not for any political or ideological concerns, but because I knew the union was essentially impotent. Our first “negotiated” contract confirmed that what we had received was “Collective Begging”, not Collective Bargaining. The public sector unions are mostly playing defense, et pas très bien.

            How many of these “alternative facts” must be debunked before we can have a discussion about genuine pension reform? I don’t make this stuff up, Love. I look it up. And not all cops, even in New Jersey, earn as much as those in Bergen County.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 7:56 pm

            A compilation of your biased views Mr. Douglas.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm

            SMD (or whatever),

            Here an interesting read:

            View story at Medium.com

            Is EVERYONE wrong and you’re right ?

            Too bad the author stopped aafter pointing out that Elected Officials are the ones to “blame” (rather than the Unions), and didn’t point out that while that’s correct, it’s the WORKERS (the Pension Plan participants) that are the financial beneficiaries of the Public Sector Union/Elected-Official Collusion, and that being the case, the Taxpayers should look to right this wrong (perpetrated upon them) by reneging on the 50+% share of those ludicrously excessive pensions (AND benefits) that assuredly would NOT have been granted in the absence of that collusion.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 8:05 pm

            Whoa ….. the link turned into a picture. Click on the picture to read the article.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 8:10 pm

            SMD (or whatever),

            If the above article doesn’t do it for you, here’s one from NJ outlining how the NJEA (NJ’s Teachers Union) has rigger the system, royally screwing NJ’s Taxpayers.

          • Posted by AKA Anonymous on October 23, 2017 at 9:49 pm

            Whoa…..

            Ooophs…..

            Because David Crane and the American Enterprise Institute are totally unbiased.

  4. Posted by Anonymous on October 23, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    Tough love is sending her messages from prison

    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: