Murphy Veto

My guess is that Phil Murphy will veto the PFRS transfer bill late on Friday and the job this week is to settle on the most palatable excuse. The possibilities (with likelihood percentages) of what they will go with:

  1. Earnings losses (60%): Liquidating assets to make the transfer would cost too much money and put the whole plan at risk
  2. Timing (30%): Need more time to study the situation (might be combined with the announcement of another study commission)
  3. Bargaining Chip (10%): Christie’s ploy last year – unlikely to be openly stated

S5 did pass with veto-proof majorities this year but that was also the case last year with S3040 and Christie’s veto was not overridden.

S3040 Sa (1R) Transfers management of PFRS to Board of Trustees of PFRS.
Received by the Senate

 

Identical Bill Number: A99

Sweeney, Stephen M.   as Primary Sponsor
Kean, Thomas H., Jr.   as Primary Sponsor
Prieto, Vincent   as Primary Sponsor
Sumter, Shavonda E.   as Primary Sponsor
Schaer, Gary S.   as Primary Sponsor
Greenwald, Louis D.   as Primary Sponsor
Rible, David P.   as Primary Sponsor
Dancer, Ronald S.   as Primary Sponsor
Beck, Jennifer   as Co-Sponsor
Bucco, Anthony R.   as Co-Sponsor
Oroho, Steven V.   as Co-Sponsor
DeAngelo, Wayne P.   as Co-Sponsor
Lagana, Joseph A.   as Co-Sponsor
Wimberly, Benjie E.   as Co-Sponsor


2/28/2017 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee
3/6/2017 Transferred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee
3/13/2017 Reported from Senate Committee, 2nd Reading
3/13/2017 Senate Amendment (34-0) (Sweeney)
3/13/2017 Emergency Resolution (37-0) (Kean)
3/13/2017 Passed by the Senate (37-0)
3/16/2017 Received in the Assembly, Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee
3/20/2017 Reported out of Assembly Committee, 2nd Reading
3/23/2017 Substituted for A99
3/23/2017 Motion To Recommit to AAP (Auth)
3/23/2017 Motion To Table (Voice) (Greenwald)
3/23/2017 Passed Assembly (Passed Both Houses) (60-4-11)
5/8/2017 Conditional Veto, Received in the Senate
Fiscal Estimate – 3/13/17; as introduced – 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Statement – SBA 3/9/17 – 2 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Introduced – – 51 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Floor Statement – Senate 3/13/17 – 2 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Statement – AAP 3/20/17 1R – 2 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Reprint – – 49 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Fiscal Estimate – 3/30/17; 1R – 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Veto – Condtional Veto – 24 pages PDF Format    HTML Format

Yet the veto was not overridden.
this legislative we have S5 which has taken a similar path:

S5 ScaSa (2R) Transfers management of PFRS to Board of Trustees of PFRS.
Passed both Houses

 

Identical Bill Number: A3671
Last Session Bill Number: S3040   (1R) A99 Sweeney, Stephen M.   as Primary Sponsor
Kean, Thomas H., Jr.   as Primary Sponsor
Johnson, Gordon M.   as Primary Sponsor
Dancer, Ronald S.   as Primary Sponsor
Bucco, Anthony R.   as Co-Sponsor
Oroho, Steven V.   as Co-Sponsor
Murphy, Carol A.   as Co-Sponsor

1/9/2018 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee
2/1/2018 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading
2/1/2018 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee
2/5/2018 Reported from Senate Committee, 2nd Reading
3/26/2018 Senate Amendment (33-1) (Sweeney)
3/26/2018 Emergency Resolution (34-2) (Kean)
3/26/2018 Passed by the Senate (34-2)
3/26/2018 Received in the Assembly without Reference, 2nd Reading
3/26/2018 Substituted for A3671
3/26/2018 Motion To Aa (Thomson)
3/26/2018 Motion To Table (Sumter) (50-21-0)
3/26/2018 Passed Assembly (Passed Both Houses) (67-2-7)
Introduced – – 51 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Statement – SSG 2/1/18 – 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Statement – SBA 2/5/18 1R – 3 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Fiscal Estimate – 2/22/18; 1R – 5 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Reprint – – 50 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Reprint – – 58 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Floor Statement – Senate 3/26/18 1R – 1 pages PDF Format    HTML Format


42 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Stanley on May 6, 2018 at 12:17 pm

    I’ll be surprised if you aren’t correct on this. Besides an examination of plan assets, there is the judges plan that will probably needs a cash advance from somewhere and what better place than the relatively over valued police and fire plan. That’s funny: the relatively over valued police and fire plan.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on May 6, 2018 at 12:39 pm

      Relatively INDEED.

      I believe the LOCAL PFRS is “officially” funded in the high 60s% (funded ratio), but that is when using the 7.65% interest rate for discounting Plan liabilities (even with there being ZERO “assets” to back 30+% of those liabilities).

      If the Plan were to use the SAME assumptions & methodology commonly used in the valuation of Private Sector Plans (a discount rate of about 3.5% to 4%), that high 60s% funded ratio would drop into the mid 40s%. For perspective, the US Gov’t considers a Private Sector Plans (valued the same way) to be in such poor condidtion if their funded ratio drops below 60%, that the Plan is barred from granting any further accruals.

      Bottom line ……… the relatively BETTER-funded LOCAL PFRS is is VERY poor financial shape.

      P.S. ……… I haven’t heard anyone having the nerve to call it “overvalued”. Are you suggesting that some have done so ?

      Reply

      • Posted by El gaupo on May 6, 2018 at 12:51 pm

        If it is vetoed, it will NOT be the judges that are he reason, it will be the NJEA (who hates Sweeney) that convinces Murphy to veto it. He may not be as lucky as Christie was in terms of being veto proof. Sweeney (and many others) spent a lot of time on this and will not want to be shown up. They will want to send a message that they are in charge.
        Sweeney will do it just to see which Dems are with him and which are with the gov.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on May 6, 2018 at 2:09 pm

          Even IF it get approved, with the last minute changes, you’ll still need EIGHT votes to reinstate your UNDESERVED COLAs.

          And with only 7 of the 12 Trustees being from the Unions, don’t count on that anytime soon.

          Reply

          • Posted by El gaupo on May 6, 2018 at 2:34 pm

            With NJ politicians TL, I don’t count on anything!!! And I think you can rest easy, from union meetings I’ve attended the plan was to only give cola to throes who retired prior to 1990🧐
            At then increase it from there. Delegates constantly tell us that it would be need based with lower pensions getting cola.
            Still would’ve been years away. Will still be. However, I think it will come back it will just be with a giveback and more time. Time will tell. Far more time than I will spend on this blog.
            I’m glad you wish me and my family well. You must be a real pearl IRL.

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 6, 2018 at 2:58 pm

            El gaupo,

            Your complaining that I think your Plan shouldn’t include COLAs?

            While I’m not very familiar with Private Sector UNION Plans, COLA increases in Corporate-sponsored Single-employer DB Plans are EXTREMELY rare.

            What makes you so “special” that you should get now only a pension that will be 3.5 to 4 TIMES greater in value upon retirement than that typically granted comparably situated Private Sector workers ……… and then get it COLA-increased when the pensions of Private Sector workers are NOT COLA-increased?

            Yes, yes, I know that you don’t get SS (which IS COLA-increased) ………. but you also don’t PAY FOR IT.

            AND ………….. SS Maxes out at about $32K for the most recent retirees. IF (and I hope NOT) your COLAs ever return, the share of your pension that is COLA-increased should never exceed the Maximum SS payout in the year of your retirement ….. again, about $32K

        • Posted by Stanley on May 6, 2018 at 3:02 pm

          Senor Gaupo, the teachers are more Murphy’s constituency than the cops, and I’m surprised that more hasn’t been written that teachers resent getting the short stick while the cops and firemen get the gravy. I’m guessing that Kean supports this change because he wants to be seen as strong on “law and order.”

          “I’m glad you wish me and my family well. You must be a real pearl” When you proudly wear your unarmed robber hat, you can’t expect to be getting on people’s good side. Wasn’t it just yesterday when you put up a series of posts stating “screw you, I’m all out for me”? Paying $10K to $15K per year for real estate taxes, people are getting taxed out of their houses, and it’s likely that you also have people voting with their feet. Businesses become less competitive because they have to adjust pay and benefit levels to retain good help. Expect some acrimony with your $300K+ job.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 6, 2018 at 3:15 pm

            And I thought El gaupo’s statement ………………. “I’m glad you wish me and my family well. You must be a real pearl” …. was directed at me because I stated that his COLA should not be reinstated.

          • Posted by Stanley on May 6, 2018 at 6:18 pm

            It was. I guess I was a little hasty in putting up a reply. I not only think that the COLA should not be reinstated but also that his pay and benefits should be significantly reduced. What a community can pay has little to do with what they should pay. Policeman is a value to the community but not so much that they should receive a king’s ransom for pay and benefits.

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 6, 2018 at 6:46 pm

            Stanley,

            Even though his “pay” is at least 25% higher than it should be, I’d leave his pay alone, but would like to see the VALUE of his pension no greater than that of the typical Private Sector worker who retires at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service ………… and THAT would require a REDUCTION of just about 70% ….. yeah he get the 30% piece !

            Of course it would only need to by about 40% if he were willing to wait until 65 to begin collecting his pension ………. just like most Private Sector workers with DB Plans must do if they want an reduced pension.

            Oh………….. and ZERO in retiree healthcare benefits …………. which is exactly what the vast majority of Private Sector workers get in employer-subsidized retiree healthcare benefits.

            EQUAL, but NOT better …… on the Taxpayers’ dime.

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 6, 2018 at 6:50 pm

            Correction above ……….. end of 2-nd paragraph….

            That was supposed to say:

            if they want an UNREDUCED pension

  2. Posted by MJ on May 7, 2018 at 7:09 am

    The teachers, the cops, the state workers, the county workers……honestly I’m tired of hearing about it all. They will all be at each other’s throats when the time comes……..my guess is the cops will win in the end so Senor Gaucho will be fine and so will I as we have already unloaded our ball and chain of NJ real estate.

    Remember senor your job is to protect and serve and you damn well better protect us folks who are productive hard working citizens contributing to your benefits and overly generous (IMO) pension!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on May 7, 2018 at 6:02 pm

      Oh please, if we were a fly on the wall in their PBA Offices, all we’d hear are new schemes to get more and more and more out of the Taxpayers.

      Reply

      • Posted by MJ on May 8, 2018 at 7:07 am

        TL I agree and it now seems as though it is getting to the point where it will soon be dog eat dog in the public sector as they slowly come to acceptance that there just isn’t any more money to go around………..

        El Gaupo himself admits that we can’t trust politicians!

        Reply

  3. Posted by Tough Love on May 7, 2018 at 11:20 pm

    Stephen Douglas,

    Is THIS the type of Police Officer you pay SOOOOO MUCH for in California ?

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/buena-park-police-officer-gun-customer-mentos/

    Reply

  4. Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 8, 2018 at 12:00 am

    Waiting for you to grow up should be a slow and painful process.

    Slow for me, painful for you.

    No, I don’t believe this officer is typical of California police.

    Any more than I think this is a typical New Jersey officer.

    http://nj1015.com/nj-cop-was-hired-after-stabbing-kept-job-after-new-rape-violence-charges/

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 12:08 am

      Well, NJ just found (via a group surreptitiously taping them) that 2 NJ School Union bosses were covering up a sex offense against a child and an assault on another.

      I can’t even begin to fathom how often (very-clear) POLICE-WITNESSED excessive force by other Police Officers goes unreported ………….. likely, a wee bit less than ALWAYS.

      Yup ……… yelling Stop Resisting, Stop Resisting, Stop Resisting while beating an ALREADY-HANDCUFFED suspect.

      Reply

      • Posted by MJ on May 8, 2018 at 7:12 am

        Most of them think that they are above the law and get away with their crimes, intimidation and rule breaking while being rewarded with high pay, promotions and of course generous retirement at age 50 or younger……..

        and they want to take our guns 🙂

        Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 12:11 am

      P.S., I didn’t ask if he was “typical”, only if he is ………”the type of Police Officer you pay SOOOOO MUCH for in California “

      Reply

  5. That’s what “typical” means

    typ·i·cal
    ˈtipik(ə)l
    adjective
    having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing.
    ————————–
    And I guarantee California, and New Jersey, have hired a lot worse.

    Reply

  6. Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 8:31 am

    Stephen Douglas,

    Give this quote from the Las Vegas Review-Journal (on the situation in Illinois) some thought. It doesn’t sound much different than CA, NJ or any of the other States/Cities where it’s Politicians fall over each other for Public Sector Union money & votes.
    —————————————————————————-
    “The state raised its rate by 32 percent over the summer, and Democrats want to even more progressive tax rates to pay for all the goodies they’ve promised to Big Labor in order to grease their re-elections. …Illinois is a financial basket case — which is what you get when you combine political patronage with powerful public-sector unions that control leftist politicians. The state should be a case study for other jurisdictions on how not to conduct public policy. After all, who will pay the bills when the taxpayers flee?”

    Reply

  7. Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 8:54 am

    Here’s an article that Tim Alexander and other supporting a bailout* of Private Sector Multi-employer Plans should read.

    http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/07/retirement/pension-fund-cuts-teamsters/index.html

    The subject of the article retired from UPS after 30 years, 12 years ago at age 64-12 = 52 with a $5,141 monthly ($61,6792 annually) pension. Per the new law allowing pension reductions, his pension was reduced by 29% to $3,650. While not mentioned, he should (or will soon) also be getting SS benefits.

    Granted it doesn’t seem “fair”, but should taxpayers (that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the pension offered by UPS and his Union) foot the bill (via a bailout) because he CHOSE to retire at 52 ? I certainly don’t think so.
    ——————————————-

    * calling it’s a gov’t subsidized loan is nonsense, and everyone knows it. Plans in this situation will in MOST cases default on the “loan” sticking Taxpayers with the bill.

    Reply

    • Posted by Stanley on May 8, 2018 at 5:44 pm

      “Here’s an article that Tim Alexander and other supporting a bailout* of Private Sector Multi-employer Plans should read….”
      Oh, woe is me! Well forgive the heck out of me for not shedding any tears in this so-called tragedy. This problem just bolted out of no where! I’m astonished that the CNN reporter couldn’t come up with someone more deserving of sympathy. So now they have to buy steaks at the grocery store and grill them out on the patio? It was beyond them to pay off debt, maintain a strong balance sheet, maintain an emergency fund–you know just practice common sense home economics. $44K per year plus SS isn’t bad, surely it’s better than many get. Well shoot. Maybe he can catch some fish or take some wild game. (There is an abundance of wild game in many parts of the country. Maybe we can put the word out on this to help people get through these tribulations.) With until the stuff really hits the fan. We are just on the edge of a giant storm.

      Reply

  8. Posted by MJ on May 8, 2018 at 12:45 pm

    Same story….who in this day and age retires at age 52 and expects to be paid for as many or more years than they worked

    Retire whenever you want but no pension until at least age 62 just like SS and even that is going belly up

    Retirees keep piling up and no way to pay for it all……..

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 1:04 pm

      What surprised me in that article is that there is ZERO mention of the age at which retired (although it was easy to back into), and apparently the fellow whose pension was cut sees no issue with seeking a bailout after retiring at such a ridiculously young age.

      His sense of entitlement is almost as bad as that of most Public Sector workers.

      Reply

      • Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 8, 2018 at 9:04 pm

        They are probably not anxious to have 60 year old men (or women) driving their trucks eight hours a day, or more. Liability

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 9:27 pm

          Then UPS should have been willing to Pay 2x the cost of a the SAME $ pension but payable starting 10 years older.

          The Taxpayers were not a party to the deal when negotiated and shouldn’t be bailing them out now…………. at least not unless everyone who lost money in a 401K Plan in the DOT-COM bubble and the great recession is ASLO “bailed out”.
          ———————————

          While you I’m sure will argue otherwise, the Taxpayers certainly had no one looking out for THEIR best interests in any Public Sector negotiations either.

          Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 9:28 pm

          How about 52 year olds (the guy in the article) ?

          Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 1:12 pm

      Keep in mind Re Social Security benefits……….

      If your full retirement age is 66 and you elect to start receiving your SS at age 62, your benefit (otherwise payable at age 66) is permanently reduced by 25%.

      While I might be willing to accept Police Officer and Firefighters retiring at age 62 (but certainly no younger) w/o reduction, all non-Safety workers positions should have a full retirement age the SAME as that that used by SS, and early retirement reductions of the SAME magnitude.

      E.g., retire and begin collecting in your mid 50s and your otherwise calculated pension is reduced by OVER 50%.

      Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on May 8, 2018 at 2:55 pm

        Apply SS benefit payment terms and an annual cap of $60K to all drone pensions and the funding problems are solved. But why try to act rationally? Let’s keep paying double and triple dippers, encourage widespread use of the infamous DROP program, allow $200K, $300K and $500K pensions and immediate benefit payment commencement after 20, 25 and 30 years of “service” and then wonder why the future retirees will get screwed like the taxpayers are now.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on May 8, 2018 at 3:06 pm

          I’m hoping that (hopefully SOON), the younger.newer employees (including Safety) will realize that there will be nothing left for THEM (because of the “moochers” that preceded them), and will seek to freeze the pension of actives, permanently end COLAs (and possibly reduce the pensions) of those already retired………… and put in place a reasonable/affordable DC Plan going forward.

          Reply

          • Posted by MJ on May 9, 2018 at 5:58 am

            As I keep saying, soon enough they will be at each other’s throats fighting over what left and what’s NOT there

            I guess we should figure ourselves lucky that we the taxpayers may have dodged another bullet with Murphy veto of the PFRS bill……..but I have no doubt it will all come up again!

  9. Posted by MJ on May 9, 2018 at 6:39 pm

    Looks like Murphy signed the bill ensuring college moneyfor illegals…..ooops there goes the pension payment!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on May 9, 2018 at 7:29 pm

      The bill is simply them In-Stat tuition rates …. with est. cost less than $5 Million.

      Reply

      • Posted by MJ on May 10, 2018 at 7:51 am

        Why should illegals get $5 million and even publics who are working get shorted?

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on May 10, 2018 at 8:15 am

          I wasn’t saying that they should, just that the cost isn’t of significant magnitude to impact the pension payments.

          FWIW ……… I would like to see AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE put into these pensions until CURRENT employee benefit levels are reduced to a level such that taxpayer contributions are no greater than the retirement security contributions that Private Sector workers typically receive from their employers…………… and yes Stephen, adjusted for verifiable wage differentials (and after taking into account hrs worked and “productivity” where measurable).

          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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: