Gov. Brown’s proposal to give new state and local government employees a hybrid retirement plan is part of a national trend, joined by Rhode Island last month and Utah last year.
A typical hybrid combines a smaller monthly pension, guaranteed for life, with a more risky and unpredictable 401(k)-style investment plan, whose value can rise and fall with the market.
For government employers a hybrid reduces the annual costs of pensions and their long-term debt — a national burden said by Pew and other researchers to have soared to $1 trillion or more after massive pension fund losses.
A brief issued by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators last month said hybrids are “receiving increased attention” as some states look beyond the standard cost-cutting methods: increasing employee contributions and giving new hires lower pensions.
The NASRA brief lists nine states (Rhode Island acted after publication) that have some version of a hybrid retirement plan: Nebraska, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and Utah.
Before Brown issued his plan, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office had recommended a hybrid as a way to reduce the risk of “future unfunded pension liabilities” or long-term debt.
The analyst said in a review of Brown’s plan that a hybrid also would address “a key policy concern” about public pensions: a “growing disparity” with the private sector where pensions are increasingly rare, largely replaced by 401(k) plans.
The bipartisan Little Hoover Commission recommended in February that California move to a hybrid model to “restore the financial health and security” of public pensions.
The commission pointed to a “breakthrough” hybrid for new federal employees begun in 1985. The hybrid was 100 percent funded in 2009, while the traditional pension fund for federal employees hired before 1987 was only 39 percent funded.
The employee contribution to the pension part of the federal hybrid is low enough (0.8 percent of pay compared to 8 percent for most California state pensions) that in September a 5 percent hike was proposed to help finance President Obama’s jobs plan.
The federal hybrid is generous enough that some supporters fear Congress, as it struggles to reduce the deficit next year, may give new federal employees lower retirement benefits.
“We may end up with a two-tier situation where they grandfather existing employees under the existing rules but change them for new employees,” John Palguta of the Partnership for Public Service told the Washington Post last week.
One of the problems in persuading politically powerful public employee unions to back a hybrid plan is the potential for poor performance or big losses in the 401(k)-style investment part.
“The 401(k)-style component must be risk-managed to provide retirement security and minimize investment volatility,” said the Little Hoover hybrid recommendation.
The California State Teachers Retirement System, which recently called itself a hybrid, has a supplemental investment plan that guarantees a minimum return based on the 30-year federal bond, sometimes yielding more in good economic times.
For a decade ending last January, a quarter of the teacher contribution (2 percent of pay from a total of 8 percent) to the now seriously underfunded CalSTRS pension plan was diverted into a Defined Benefit Supplement created by AB 1509 in 2000.
An unusually brief legislative analysis of the last-minute bill, which did not go through the usual committees, said diverting part of the teacher contribution would have “no (state) general fund effect and no effect to the solvency of STRS.”
Now the contribution to the little-known supplement to CalSTRS pensions is mainly from pay earned outside the regular school year, such as summer school and overtime.
In his hybrid proposal, Brown said the 401(k)-style part “will be managed professionally to reduce the risk of employee investment loss.” The goal is to replace 75 percent of salary based on a full 35-year career, 30 years for police and firefighters.
The retirement income would come from a smaller pension, a 401(k)-style plan and Social Security, each providing about a third. For workers not in Social Security, the pension would be two-thirds of retirement income.
The pension part of the hybrid would be capped by limiting the amount of pay counted toward the pension, which is usually based on years of service, final salary and age.
A hybrid is one point in Brown’s 12-point pension reform plan, only outlined in broad concepts so far. An administration spokesman said the plan will be put into bill form and introduced in the Legislature.
If a hybrid is approved, the state Department of Finance plans to obtain expert outside help and spend about six months working out model hybrid plans for the wide range of local governments in California.
“There are different situations for different workers and different levels of government, and that’s why we think the hybrid plan will deserve extra study,” Michael Cohen, finance chief deputy director, told a legislative hearing early this month.
Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, asked the California Public Employees Retirement System to make some assumptions about the governor’s plan and “run numbers” on several versions.
“I think that will help spark some thinking at the legislative level about how we might or might not want to modify or adjust what the governor proposed,” said Simitian.
CalPERS representatives agreed to provide estimates based on the governor’s plan. But they told the two-house legislative committee that 401(k)-style plans tend to earn less and cost more to administer than pension plans.
“It’s possible to achieve cost savings and reduce risks through adjustments to a defined benefit (pension) plan without compromising retirement security as can and usually does occur in a hybrid plan,” said Ann Boynton, CalPERS deputy executive.
The NASRA brief said the cost of closing a pension plan to new employees can exceed the savings, one reason along with retirement security that some states are looking at hybrids rather than switching to only a defined contribution 401(k)-style plan.
In Rhode Island, Treasurer Gina Raimondo’s website said switching to a 401(k)-style plan would cost an additional $882 million in contributions over the next five years. The website said a hybrid avoids those costs and is “fair to both employees and taxpayers.”
California Pension Reform led by Dan Pellissier filed two versions of a sweeping pension reform — one putting new hires in a hybrid, the other in a 401(k)-style plan. The Legislative Analyst is expected to make a cost analysis as part of the initiative process.
Brown said earlier this month he will vigorously push for pension reform that can be placed on the ballot, an apparent cost control to encourage voters to support his proposed tax increase to avoid deeper state budget cuts.
“I believe it’s imperative for the Legislature to pass a credible pension reform that will be right there alongside a tax measure in November,” the governor said at a budget news conference.
A Public Policy Institute of California poll early this month found that 83 percent of Californians think public pension costs are a problem. A switch to a 401(k)-style plan was supported by 68 percent of adults and 64 percent of public employees.
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at https://calpensions.com/ Posted 26 Dec 11
Calpensions 
December 26, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Brown’s plan isn’t perfect but is the way of the future… grandfather in existing obligations and new tier the future—-
December 26, 2011 at 5:33 pm
One of the problems in persuading politically powerful public employee unions to back a hybrid plan is the potential for poor performance or big losses in the 401(k)-style investment part.
So now we have poor performance and big losses in DB’s going onto the backs of the poor right now, no difference at all except who gets stuck witht he losses, the over paid and over benefited gov trough feeders or the working class poor.
December 26, 2011 at 5:33 pm
We can cut future years of service for all gov employees, so lets start chopping 😛
December 26, 2011 at 5:36 pm
We can start with Teddys janitor job 😛
December 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm
The poor poodle! Can’t even think of his own jokes! Maybe that lack of imagination is why you never qualify for a good job? Do you think your dull normal delivery shows large at the interviews? Hmmm
And where is my case cite little fella?
LOL
Happy New Year little buddy !@headrenter.com
Oh MY !!
December 26, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Where should I send this months rent check T. Steals???
I feel bad owning so much of your real estate and not paying a dime for it ;P
December 26, 2011 at 6:44 pm
BTW legal midget, do you know what cy pres is without Googling it 🙂
Coming soon to a public pension near you!
December 26, 2011 at 6:52 pm
While the rationale for the Hybrid Plan is strong, the existence of ANY DB Plan leaves the door open for future Plan enhancements (formula increases, reductions in the retirement age, subsidized early retirements, pensionable compensation spiking, etc.), perhaps even retroactively as has been done in the past.
Politicians simply cannot be trusted to NOT trade such future enhancements for campaign contributions and election support from the Public Sector Unions.
Taxpayers have been financially raped by these Unions and cooperating politicians. WE simply must SHUT THIS DOOR permanently … by shifting all (including CURRENT) public sector workers to 401k-style DC Plans for future service accruals.
While the Public Sector workers would scream that this is unfair, remember, their “cash pay” is now equal to or better than that of Private Sector workers in most occupations, so there is ZERO justification for ANY better pensions or benefits.
December 26, 2011 at 7:23 pm
While the rationale for the Hybrid Plan is strong, the existence of ANY DB Plan leaves the door open for future Plan enhancements (formula increases, reductions in the retirement age, subsidized early retirements, pensionable compensation spiking, etc.), perhaps even retroactively as has been done in the past.
TL – this IS the biggest problem. CA already put in a limit on pensions back in the early 1990’s, and then SB400, 3%@50, just over rode all of that earlier law-retroactively.
When a pension can be backloaded with 30-50 years of unearned benefits the day before you retire then you will always have the potential for this kind of abuse.And I agree, unless there is someway to prevent retroactive ncreases then NO DB pension should be allowed.
Very valid point. But it will be lost on Teddy Steals [your lunch] and seesaw, who is probably wearing her fingers out typing away on the LA Times or Sac Bee websites posting her public union propaganda… 🙂
December 26, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Rex,
It’s NOT just the radioactivity problem.
The rate of accrual for future service for CURRENT workers is AT LEAST 50%-75% too high … when compared to what Comparable Private Sector workers get from their employers.
With equal (or better) Public Sector cash pay, there is simply no justification for a continuation of the granting of these excessive pensions accruals.
December 26, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Rex, haven’t you looked at Brown’s 12-point proposal for reforming pensions. It does away with retroactive increases. (Retroactive pensions enhancements were always done in CA, and the 1999 law did not introduce anything new, regarding retroactivity. I do not belong to a union, so stop saying that I am spreading union propaganda. I am smart enough, to glean facts on my own, and form my own opinions.
December 26, 2011 at 7:54 pm
TL, even GAS, the man who was responsible, for the scapegoating, of his own State emloyees, after the global financial collapse, caused by Wall Street, stated in his own, 2010, State of the State address, that it is, both, illegal and immoral, to downgrade the pensions, going forward, of the current employees.
December 26, 2011 at 8:31 pm
LOL— The Doctrine of Cy Pres???? Ok Little Buddy !!! Good Luck with that– I will await word from the app court! LOL God Bless ya!
December 26, 2011 at 10:33 pm
I always enjoy reading what new legal term or concept Rex has most recently stumbled upon, and he never ceases to give me vast amusement when his little brain tries to apply such concepts to things like legal pension obligations and mature debt.
You really are a hoot, Rex!
December 26, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Quoting SeeSaw…”TL, even GAS, the man who was responsible, for the scapegoating, of his own State emloyees, after the global financial collapse, caused by Wall Street, stated in his own, 2010, State of the State address, that it is, both, illegal and immoral, to downgrade the pensions, going forward, of the current employees.”
It is both legal and ROUTINE to do so in Private Sector Plans, the members of which (Private Sector Taxpayers) pay for almost all of YOUR pension.
What make Civil Servants so special that they deserve better ?
December 26, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Right you are Skip– and of course notice please that the Poodle is ALWAYS unable to cite any case ever where his new doctrine or idea is credited by any court of record as authority to do, well……ah…..anything! God Bless ya little poodle troll!
December 26, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Public employees deserve better pensions than private employees for several reasons, TL.
First, public employers weren’t included in ERISA protections passed back in the early 70’s, under a Republican President. Such inclusion would have at least prevented public employers from short-funding their own pension plans.
Second, public employées don’t have their pensions guaranteed by the PBGC like private employees do.
Finally, unless you just cherry-pick the data, public employees have lower salaries for commensurate education and experience than do those in the private sector. Wave your hands and disagree as much as you’d like, but all the spinning by you and your cronies won’t change that fact.
December 26, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Skippy, Fair enough comment … and my thoughts.
(1) As to the lack of PBGC coverage: (a) Only time will tell if the underfunding will lead to a loss of promised pensions not covered by the PBGC, almost nothing has been lost to date, and (b) the Limits on PBGC coverage (about 55K/yr for terminations with the worker at age 65, but only about $21K at age 55) are VERY low given the young ages at which Public Sector workers retire. Summary … almost non-issues as justifications for better pensions.
(2) As to your ERISA comment: You focused only on the short-funding side. You fail to mention that the MUCH more strict funding rules would have never allowed your rich benefits to be promised in the first instance since Under ERISA, transparency would have shown up-front the HUGE costs. And certainly, SB400 would NEVER have passed. Taxpayers would never have allowed it.
(3) The Gov’t BLS studies show that with the exception of a very few highly professional occupations (e.g., doctors, lawyers, certain specialized IT professionals, etc.) “cash pay” is near equal in the Public and Private sectors … WITH accounting for education level.
So tell me Skippy, you said …”Public employees deserve better pensions than private employees for several reasons,” For the reasons stated above, your justifications are not valid in my opinion, but even if valid, tell me just …. HOW MUCH better
should they be … 10%, 25%, how about 400-600% ???
You were a Police officer, likely with the 3% at 50 pension formula. Under that formula, the value of your pension on the date of retirement was CERTAINLY 4x (and quite possibly 6 times) greater in value than the pension of a similarly paid Private Sector worker retiring at the SAME age with the SAME years of service. And all your contributions (WITH investment income) wouldn’t buy more than 10-20% of your pension.
Promised, yes. ….
Fair, absolutely not ….
Fully payable, I seriously doubt it …..
December 27, 2011 at 1:26 am
TL, now you have added one more fault, that you think, is a common trait, of public employees–we are radioactive. Thanks for the chuckle.
December 27, 2011 at 1:27 am
SeeSaw,
Either you have a problem reading or you are delusional.
December 27, 2011 at 2:59 am
What problem do I have? Am I imagining that you said, “Its NOT the radioactivity problem”? Am I being delusional, in thinking, that you meant to say, “retroactivity problem…………………..”?
December 27, 2011 at 4:58 am
SeeSaw
Your claims of an innocent former union member that can find no wrong with the current state of CalPERS is BS. You’ve been defending the CalPERS ponzi scheme for at least three years. You’ve ridiculed Vallejo for filing bankruptcy. And now, when the writing is on the wall, your softer approach lacks any substance.
December 27, 2011 at 5:12 am
SeeSaw, Oooohs …You are correct … i did say “Its NOT the radioactivity problem”. That’s pretty funny.
So much for relying on spell-check when you mis-spell a word.
As you said, you knew that was supposed to say “retroactivity”
December 27, 2011 at 5:25 am
December 26, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Rex, haven’t you looked at Brown’s 12-point proposal for reforming pensions.
Jerry Clowns 12 point plan is a joke, window dressing when a 12 course meal is needed
December 27, 2011 at 5:26 am
SeeSaw,
Either you have a problem reading or you are delusional.
It is delusional, seesaw is sincere in her wild beliefs, but they are toally 100% delusional
December 27, 2011 at 5:28 am
SkippingDog Says:
Second, public employées don’t have their pensions guaranteed by the PBGC like private employees do.
Neither does the private sector.
And the PBGC does not “guarantee” pensions.
December 27, 2011 at 5:33 am
Finally, unless you just cherry-pick the data, public employees have lower salaries for commensurate education and experience than do those in the private sector. Wave your hands and disagree as much as you’d like, but all the spinning by you and your cronies won’t change that fact.
100% false and Skippy knows it. Gov employement pays cash wages higher in 80% of all jobs. And including the benefits overall comp is higher in nearly all jobs.
Skippy-can you show us anywhere in the private sector when a GED educated rank and file employee can make $200K in base comp and up top $350K with overtime????….like a cop or ff or prsion guard can??
BTW-hear you go-this will put an end to your whopper that gov pays less, educate yourself;
Government pay ahead of private industry
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Updated 3/8/2010
Government employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
December 27, 2011 at 5:35 am
TL, even GAS, the man who was responsible, for the scapegoating, of his own State emloyees, after the global financial collapse, caused by Wall Street, stated in his own, 2010, State of the State address, that it is, both, illegal and immoral, to downgrade the pensions, going forward, of the current employees.”
Arnold NEVER said that seesaw.
December 27, 2011 at 5:53 am
Captain, I don’t know what you mean, by accusing me of claiming to be an innocent union member. Am I charged with something here? What would I supposedly be innocent of doing? Is working in the public sector for half my life, and being in a union, a crime?
I don’t have to do anything to defend CalPERS. The Plan is the provider of my pension, which it does with proper regularity. As I have said before, I expect CalPERS, to keep me informed, about the stability of my pension, which it does. If the time should come, when CalPERS cannot guarantee such stability for me, it will let me know, and I will take whatever, appropriate action, is necessary. I am concerned with your idea of what is construed as writing on the wall, and I don’t give a darn, what you think about my approach.
I have never ridiculed Vallejo for claiming bankrupty. I challenge you to prove that charge. I did follow the bankruptcy, on the Vallejo Times Herald site. When the bankruptcy was complete. I reported that the City spent 12 million dollars, of its own funds; that the pensions still exist; that it still operates and has employees who are in unions, that it has developed a plan, to pay back its creditors. Now, Mr. Smartypants–find anything in my reporting those facts, as ridicule!
TL, I was just trying to add a little levity to the conversation. As I said, it gave me a chuckle!
December 27, 2011 at 6:00 am
Rex, you are truley, one sick puppy! GAS did say that, and in those exact words. I was sitting here, right in front of my own TV, and I heard it, out of his mouth, with my own ears. Now go on and dig in the yard–that’s all your are good for.
December 27, 2011 at 7:22 am
Captain, CalPERS is not a Ponzie Scheme. In a Ponzi Scheme, latecomers are the ones, that get taken. CalPERS has been in operation for 80 years. I became a member 36 years agi. It has paid off for me–so it is no Ponzi Scheme. If will still be paying off for future retirees, long after I am gone. That would be a real dissappointment, for you to see other people financially stable–wouldn’t it.
December 27, 2011 at 8:56 am
SeeSaw, I think you are wrong when you say the latecomers will not be the ones that get taken. If not already, they certainly will not get what they have been promised. It’s the math …. can’t work.
In fact, I believe there is a good chance the impetus for change (including reductions in the pension accrual rate for future service for current workers) may come at least equally from younger “actives” than from Private Sector taxpayers.
At some point in the not to distant future, these actives will realize that their contributions are not being saved and invested for THEM, but are instead being diverted to pay for the outsized pensions of current retirees.
When their contributions can no longer be diverted, pressure for givebacks from retirees will build as well.
Greed has consequences.
December 27, 2011 at 9:36 am
TL, there is no such thing as private sector, only, taxpayers. All citizens, are taxpayers, and that includes everyone, private and public sectors,.alike. Irrational hatrid has consequences.
December 27, 2011 at 2:44 pm
TL— You are wrong about the math— unless you figure in no new tiers, adjustments to input by the employer and employee and ignore 20 year markt history….and of course basic contract law which will require performance……..unless there is violent insurrection that ends tax collection and enforcement…..of course if that happens the poodle won’t even be able to live in his van down by the river. LOL ! (I love this stuff)
December 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Rex seems unaware the PBGC exists precisely to protect pension benefits for private sector workers.
http://www.pbgc.gov/about/faq/pg/general-faqs-about-pbgc.html
Nothing new here, since Rex has amply demonstrated his ignorance many times before.
December 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm
SeeSaw, the point was clear to anyone with an open mind.
Today, almost 100% of any tax increase go only to funding Public Sector Pensions. So sure, with about 15% of Taxpayers being Public Sector workers, the $15 (of every $100 in total Taxes raises) THEY pay goes to fund THEIR pensions ….. and here’s the rub …. the $85 that PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers pay doesn’t benefit THEM in any way, as it ALSO go to fund PUBLIC Sector pensions.
Pretty rotten deal for PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers. But …. those Private Sector Taxpayers have wised-up to this rotten deal, so the odds of getting ANY Tax increase approved in CA is just about ZERO. Which means, the balancing item will need to be pension benefit reductions.
December 27, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Your old post from USA Today applies only to a limited selection of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT employees, Rex.
Do you ever engage in any critical thought at all?
December 27, 2011 at 7:21 pm
TL, the funding for public sector pensions is a very small percentage, of any respective entities total budget. In CA, the State’s CalPERS liability is 3%, of the total budget. The tax-increase, that Brown is proposing, is a one-half of one cent increase, in the sales tax, for all residents. The other part of Brown’s proposal, calls for slight increases on individuals who have an adjusted gross income, of $250,000 or more, and on couples with an adjusted gross income of $500,000 or more. The proceeds would be earmarked, specifically, for education and public safety. The State of CA, has many needs, that dwarf any pension liabilities. Are things so boring in NJ, that you must poke your nose into the business of CA, constantly, and tell people, you don’t even know, how greedy they are! As I have said before, there is no such thing as private sector taxpayers. All residents, of the State of CA, are equal payers of taxes.
December 27, 2011 at 8:26 pm
And, Rex, federal government employees, make a lot more than local and state government employees. Kudos to Skipper for pointing out your souce. You owe me an apology, for commenting on my state of mind, when you were completely unaware, of what the conversation was about. I am completely lucid and not delusional, and had no trouble reading.
December 27, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Quoting SeeSaw, ….”All residents, of the State of CA, are equal payers of taxes.”
But not all residents are BENEFICIARIES of additional taxes …… ONLY the Public Sector workers are … to fund their excessive Pensions.
December 27, 2011 at 10:21 pm
No TL, they worked for those benefits. Once those taxes left the hands of the payers, and entered the hands, of those doing the work, it was then their money, and no longer the payer’s money. Its really no different than purchasing an item, at the store. Do you sit around and claim, that the clerk is only able to eat, because you gave him/her money, through the product you purchased? I am gettting very sick, of this hate rhetoric, toward public employees, because you resent, what they are paid. I will bet that the public employees in NJ, make several times, what the public employees earn, in CA–maybe that’s your problem.
December 27, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Rex seems unaware the PBGC exists precisely to protect pension benefits for private sector workers.
Actually you GED educated bird brain I am fully aware that the PBGC only backs the private sector-SO WHAT? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? How is that a benefit to ANYONE in the private sector where nearly no one has a DB and the oens who do most do not fail, and the oens that do fail might represent maybe 1 out of 1,000,000 people and then they still receive 50% on the dollar, no different than a failed muni like Central falls RI. It is not a benefit at all for private sector employees and your crazy comment that you deserve MORE pension $$ over this is the height of mental illness.
If you Skippy were in a private company and you retired at age 50 with a $100K pension (OK, we all know this would never in a million years happen in the real world but lets just pretend) you would not receive a DIME. NO ONE in the PBGC gets ANY pension before age 55, and the few that do only get $1K a month at age 55, the MAX at AGE 65!!! is $54K.
And WHY does the PBGC not applying to the public sector ENTITLE YOU to a better pension??Hugh?? You never explained that. NO ONE in the private sector has a DB pension today, at least not the rank and file-and the ones that do have to retire at age 65-not age 50.
You and seesaw are like TL said-truly delusional about your entitlements.
December 28, 2011 at 12:26 am
lol– I love the way the poodle gets all spun up and spews barely cogent nonsense! Weeeee….That was easy!!!..god bless the tiny troll!
December 28, 2011 at 12:53 am
Teddy, that lasdt comment mad eme cry-are you trying to hurt the Rotti?????
December 28, 2011 at 12:56 am
SeeSaw Says:
December 27, 2011 at 10:21 pm
No TL, they worked for those benefits
seesaw, NO you did not work for your benefits, they were gifted out retroactively- and the compensation you get is far above market-GED cops and FF would never in a million years make more than minimum wage with a GED in real life.
Why must you spin these whoppers seesaw???
Google SB400 and see what they did with that-educate yourself girl! 😛
Come on, you are way smarter than Teddy Steals is……..
December 28, 2011 at 12:59 am
And, Rex, federal government employees, make a lot more than local and state government employees. Kudos to Skipper for pointing out your souce. You owe me an apology, for commenting on my state of mind, when you were completely unaware, of what the conversation was about. I am completely lucid and not delusional, and had no trouble reading.
seesaw, it is a well known fact that LOCAL gov employees make MORE than STATE or FEDERAL employees-so those BLS stats would have an even BIGGER disparity if applied to the local munis……. And honestly -if you think, truly think, gov employeesd make LESS than the private sector employees then you are delusional. Ask TL@!
December 28, 2011 at 1:22 am
Quoting SeeSaw …”No TL, they worked for those benefits. Once those taxes left the hands of the payers, and entered the hands, of those doing the work, it was then their money, and no longer the payer’s money.”
No to belabor the issue, but if Public Sector Pensions were not grossly excessive (as they are today) then the taxes paid by those NOT benefiting from this (the Private Sector Taxpayers) would be a GREAT DEAL lower.
December 28, 2011 at 1:45 am
I love coming to blogs like this and reading what TL and Rex have on their minds on any given day. It’s just like the movie Groundhog Day!
I know you’re hoping people like SeeSaw and I won’t receive the pension benefits we’ve earned, TL, but it’s highly unlikely that us old retirees will be thrown under the bus in California. Whether you like it or not, California has a much different pension structure at both the state and local level than places like RI or NJ.
It’s also good to remember that pension funds earn the vast majority of their funds through investment earnings. If you look at something like the CalPERS annual report, it has a large section identifying the various investment funds it uses. There’s even information identifying how much of the agency’s funding is invested in various bond, real estate, equities, and Treasury funds.
All in all CalPERS is widely diversified, as are other California pension funds.
Whether the funds make their 7.25%, 7.50%, or 7.75% overall return over the next two or three decades is something we can debate and argue for the same period of time. Only hindsight will truly inform us of their status.
In the meantime, when you hope for something like a severe haircut in existing pension obligations and mature debt, what you’re really hoping for is a worldwide financial catastrophe, since that is the only scenario that would lead to the outcome you seem to desire.
If that’s what you’re betting on, history informs us you’ll lose.
December 28, 2011 at 1:55 am
I worked for the benefits, Rex. The formula happened to be upgraded in 2001, and enacted, retroactively, which was standard, in the public sector, in CA, for 98 years. I was not responsible for running the DB pension plans. Fact is, there was no discussion about such practices, until the economy tanked, and Mr. Moorlach decided, that he was going to become an _______ giver.
Jerry Brown has decided, that the state should not allow retroactive pension upgrades, any longer. He now calls it, an irresponsible practice. He extolled such practice, in the Amicus Brief, he wrote, when he was the AG. I have written him a letter, pointing out his hyprocrisy, on that issue. One of his 12 points, is a recommendation to abolish retroactive, pension enhancements, so its up to the Legislature to take action. With the economy in the tank, as it is, I doubt there will be, any more concern about retroactivity, because there probably won’t be, any future, formula enhancements.
I didn’t say anything about local government employees, making less than private sector employees. I said that, local and state employees make less, than federal employees. Who is the delusional one here? (My own public sector job, did pay less than a comparable private sector job. I was a supervisor with many responsibilities, and I made much less than a private sector counterpart, in my demographic area. My job even paid less than a comparable job, in other muni’s.)
December 28, 2011 at 2:29 am
bI know you’re hoping people like SeeSaw and I won’t receive the pension benefits we’ve earned,
Once again Skippy, you never “earned” a retroactive pension in YOUR LIFE. So much for that whopper!
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂
Stop the spin, for once, that whopper was almost as comical as the whopper that trough feeders should get $10 million pensions at age 50 b/c they are not part of the PBGC!!!! Sort of like saying public employees should get $10 million pensions b/c they never got a room on the Titanic!
December 28, 2011 at 2:29 am
I know you’re hoping people like SeeSaw and I won’t receive the pension benefits we’ve earned,
Once again Skippy, you never “earned” a retroactive pension in YOUR LIFE. So much for that whopper!
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂
Stop the spin, for once, that whopper was almost as comical as the whopper that trough feeders should get $10 million pensions at age 50 b/c they are not part of the PBGC!!!! Sort of like saying public employees should get $10 million pensions b/c they never got a room on the Titanic!
December 28, 2011 at 2:33 am
I worked for the benefits, Rex.
NO ONE who received a retroactive pension hike of up to 50% “worked” for their pension seesaw. That is a straight up, whopper, fib, story, lie.
Now, were you granted a retroactive pension increase??? If not then you are correct. But if you were- then you are wrong. And there are MILLIONS of government employees who DID receive retroactive pension increases and they did not “WORK “for them.
So lets clarify the issue seesaw-anyone who received a retroactive pension increase did not “WORK “for them. Will you agree to that statement?
December 28, 2011 at 2:41 am
It’s also good to remember that pension funds earn the vast majority of their funds through investment earnings.
Pension fund money comes from ONLY TWO sources Skippy-employees and employer/taxpayers.
Taxpayers are covering 65%-100% of ALL the contributions. Any earnings from the invested contributions were from the two sources– of which 90% overall comes from taxpayers.
The last 10 years Calpers has been flat. The odds of making a 7.75% ROI over the next 5,10, 20, 30 years are slim and zero (and I think Slim is out of town)-ask Warrent Buffet or ANY other knowledgable investmen guru.
The ONLY people who claim a 7.75% ROI going forward are the low down, pond scum scuking, fat greedy fingers in your pockets public employees and their biased pension funds. Public employees who are already being comped 30%-500% more than they would in real life.
December 28, 2011 at 2:48 am
In the meantime, when you hope for something like a severe haircut in existing pension obligations and mature debt, what you’re really hoping for is a worldwide financial catastrophe, since that is the only scenario that would lead to the outcome you seem to desire
Actually what I am really hoping for-what most average decent hard working people living in real life are hoping for- is just one thing-to not have the average CA taxpayer (whose median income is $31K) being forced to cover a $10 million pension for a GED educated cop or firewhiner who retired at age 50 and contributed only $30K of his OWN money to his $10 million pension.
That IS WHAT I AM HOPING FOR. To not get stuck paying for your pension scam, nothing more. That is all any person living in the real world is hoping for.
I know you try to spin the issue as a “contract” or as a “…they want to destroy the world….” or as a ” you could have had a gov job too” issue, but that is just your spin, nothing more. Anyone who has worked in gov knows how incompetent, unethical, cronysim and nepotism the place is. If gov were a business it would not last 2 weeks.
December 28, 2011 at 2:52 am
Skippy, you said …”I know you’re hoping people like SeeSaw and I won’t receive the pension benefits we’ve earned, TL, but it’s highly unlikely that us old retirees will be thrown under the bus in California. ”
You would be hard pressed to find a comment from me were I stated that I hoped your pension is not paid. While I do indeed feel your pension is unfairly generous, with your contribution towards it woefully too small, you did nothing wrong. CA’s elected reps did, by approving it. While I won’t go so far as to say that I would be perturbed by such a haircut, I do not wish for it and it should only happen as a last resort, under dire circumstances. If you have a conscience, I surmise even you would agree there is only so much financial pain the masses should endure so you can continue to get such rich pensions…. with “rich” meaning so much more (as a % of pay) than what Private Sector workers typically get.
That being said, I do indeed hope that future service pension accruals for CURRENT workers are immediately and FULLY reduced to a level such that together with their cash pay and other benefits (e.g. the value of retiree healthcare accruals) their total compensation is no greater than the total compensation (pay + pensions + benefits) of Private Sector workers in comparable jobs (or jobs with comparable risks).
December 28, 2011 at 3:49 am
Rex, you slander a lot of public sector retirees, when you, accuse them of, having blanket, ten million dollar pensions. If I am fortunate enough, to live to the age, of 92, I would earn an aggregate of one million dollars, in pension funds. That is not exhorbitant, for one life; nor is it greedy.
December 28, 2011 at 3:52 am
Rex, I have told you before, and I will repeat–I did not get a 50% pension increase. I got a 21%, pension increase. And, four and one-half years of my service time, were paid for, both employer and employee’s share, out of my own pocket.
December 28, 2011 at 3:56 am
The formula was increased Rex. That does not mean that the years, were not worked.
December 28, 2011 at 3:58 am
Well,why don’t you just leave CA Rex. You can settle down in a Red State, and your buddies will all be earning minimum wage.
December 28, 2011 at 4:37 am
TL – Thanks for your reasonably sane and rational comments. Although we must agree to disagree about the relative “richness” of my pension, I do understand your “concerns” with the long-term viability of such benefits and accept your position as one of honest, if misplaced, civic minded behavior.
OTOH, Rex just loves to bark at passing cars, people, or anything else that happens by. That’s why it’s so much fun to rattle his fence and remind him of his legal and moral obligation to adhere to contracts executed on his behalf, like that comprising my pension benefits.
As to whether the long-range ROI targets currently in use are realistic or not, I think you’d have to distinguish between the class of investments involved. Global equities have done substantially better than domestic over the past year, the dollar and treasuries are still the preferred investment of safety for the world market, and “the Economy” is vastly larger than the U.S. market.
As to your claim, Rex, that “taxpayers” make all of the contributions to my pension fund, you are both correct and incorrect.
Your claim is correct, in that my salary and benefits – including my pension – were paid from the funds of the government agencies I served. As government agencies, all funding was a result of tax revenues, including my salary and benefits.
You are incorrect about the “ownership” of my pension fund, however. Every dollar placed into the fund was compensation for my labor – whether the dollar was paid on my behalf by my employer or directly deducted from my check. It was all compensation payable to me for my work. Therefore, every dollar in my pension fund is legally and morally mine, as are all the dollars generated by the investments of that fund. That would be no different if my pension were a defined contribution instead of a defined benefit: every dollar deposited or returned on investment would be my personal property.
If your real concern is that my pension fund won’t effectively produce the income necessary to fund my retirement at the agreed upon levels until my death, as well as funding the reduced survivorship pension my wife will receive until her own death, then you shouldn’t expect me to share your alarm. That IS the true value of a defined benefit pension, as it was always designed to be.
I’ll be long dead before my pension fund depletes its assets. You should be happy about that because, in the alternative, you would be paying your taxes directly to support me.
December 28, 2011 at 4:54 am
TL says much nicer things to Skipper than, he does to me. He once called me, the epitome of avarice and greed.
December 28, 2011 at 4:58 am
BTW, Rex, I know how frustrated you must be these days. You don’t live in Alabama or Rhode Island and, even in those places, the changes to public pension plans aren’t nearly as extensive as you’d like to see.
In the meantime, here in sunny California, your prediction that the Orange County lawsuit to claw back pension benefits from the deputy sheriff’s would prevail was completely torpedoed by every court reviewing the lawsuit. The California Supreme Court’s recent opinion on behalf of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals further established that even benefits previously thought to be unprotected could also be vested under an implied contract — another big loss for your side and, particularly, John Moorlach.
The state of RI is contemplating legislation to take over the thousands of small, local public pension plans located there to make sure they are properly funded and the promised benefits are paid. Alabama has already begun state action to address legally obligated pension benefits in places like your favorite, Prichard, and those obligation will too be paid in time.
Pension politics is fun, since it generates a lot of smoke and heat, but your “pension crisis” door of opportunity is closing. As the national election gains people’s attention, measures like Gov. Brown’s proposals work their way through legislatures across the country, and our economy begins its inevitable if incremental improvement over the next year, your fevered claims about the impending doom of our public pension systems will seem more and more like the hyperbole of 9/11 Truthers.
Hope you enjoyed the ride while it lasted.
December 28, 2011 at 4:59 am
If that’s the case, SeeSaw, he is clearly no gentleman.
December 28, 2011 at 5:11 am
SeeSaw …If I said that (??) I apologize I must have been having a particularly bad day.
December 28, 2011 at 5:18 am
I think it was on the OCR, before it went to Facebook, only, commenting. Apology accepted.
December 28, 2011 at 5:28 am
OTOH, Rex just loves to bark at passing cars, people, or anything else that happens by
Skippy, Rex has only three words for you RUFF RUFF RUFF
December 28, 2011 at 5:35 am
BTW, Rex, I know how frustrated you must be these days. You don’t live in Alabama or Rhode Island and, even in those places, the changes to public pension plans aren’t nearly as extensive as you’d like to see.
LOL@Skippy!!!!!!!!!!!
You have to be kidding me. Central Falls RI cut in public safety pensions was not “nearly as extensive as [I’d] like to see”!!!!! Skippy, please put the pipe down! You have had too many hit os whatever it is youre smoking.
Central Falls RI public safety took 55% PENSION CUTS!!!
I actually felt SORRY FOR THEM, it was far more than I would have liked to seen, but they forced the higher cuts on themselves because they MADE the trustee go to BK court to break the pensions. They thought the trustee was bluffing and he called them. That led to 55% pesnion cuts.…..55%!!!!!!
55% cuts were far more extensive than I ever thought.
C. Falls slashes dozens of pensions by 55%; one gets cut $41K
http://blogs.wpri.com/2011/09/02/c-falls-slashes-dozens-of-pensions-by-55-one-gets-cut-41k/
December 28, 2011 at 5:45 am
Skippy, Browns pension bandaid plan will fail, it is already polling far behind the 55%-66% needed to pass. It will fail because the people are not going to vote for higher pension taxes. Arnold tried it with a 2 year plan and it failed, what makes you think Brown will get a 5 year tax hike??? Just will not happen.
San Diego already proved that with Prop D last year. If anything plans like Browns are failing more and more everyday all across America. Look to San Diego where they TRIED to pass a pension sales tax-failed by a 3-1 margin, 4-1 if you take out the public employee vote. San Diego is going to put all new employees into 401K’s. That is catching on and will spread like wildfire. Look at Central Falls, pensions cut by 55%. Look almost anywhere and the pension scam for trough feeders is ending. Look at IL, the entire state is going BK and there is NO saving it.
There has been no recovery and it wouldn’t matter anyway because the economy is not the problem, it is $10 million pensions going to 50 year old HS edusated cops and firewhiners. THAT is the real problem, and the word is out. The jig is up, gravy train has derailed.
71% of voters say public pensions are out of control. It would be 91% if you took out the public employee voters.
Look Skippy, you and seesaw can post anything you want, but we all know the jig is up.
December 28, 2011 at 5:49 am
You are incorrect about the “ownership” of my pension fund, however. Every dollar placed into the fund was compensation for my labor – whether the dollar was paid on my behalf by my employer or directly deducted from my check.
Just as I corrected seesaw, I will now corerct you. 100% TOTALLY FALSE.
If you received retroactive pension increases that was NOT placed into the fund as “compensation” for your unskilled GED labor. It was not earned nor was it compensation.
So, if you received a retroactive pension increase-as seesaw did- then you did not work for it or earn it.
December 28, 2011 at 6:07 am
There was never any requirement for extra work to be done, for the pension upgrade. It was simply an increase in the calculation–the years were worked. It doesn’t matter whether or not we worked extra for it. It was nothing, that had to be earned. The powers-that-be, did not know of the coming financial storm. Gray Davis has said that, in hindsight, signing SB400, was a mistake. That’s it, and that’s the way it will remain. You might as well go onto another project, Rex, because whining about the fact that some people got bigger pensions than you and other people, is not going to change anything–unless you plan to die whining.
December 28, 2011 at 6:59 am
There was never any requirement for extra work to be done, for the pension upgrade. It was simply an increase in the calculation–the years were worked.
Yes seesaw, and I guess you’re blind to the fact that this “pension upgrade” was not worked for nor earned. Or do you think the gov has a “magic money tree” where money grows on it?????
It doesn’t matter whether or not we worked extra for it.
it doesn’t matter???? Not to you, you are gettign free money you didn’t earn or work for, to everyone else who has to pay for this scam it matters a lot.
It was nothing, that had to be earned. The powers-that-be, did not know of the coming financial storm.
That is a flat out LIE. CalTURDS knew exactly of the coming financial storm, and they knowingly, willfully and intenionally hid the costs-that is fraud and sooner or later a muni member fo CalTURDS is going to sue them over this fraud. Wait untilt hat happens then try that lien that CalTURDS didn’t know anyhting.
Gray Davis has said that, in hindsight, signing SB400, was a mistake.
Damn right it ws, as was Davis giving a 37% pay raise to the prison guards onver a 4 year contract-there was a reason, they paid him off for that 37% pay raise, just like they paid Jerry Clown off last year and Clown gave them HUGE raises in a depression. NO gov employees should be getting ANY raising in this economy-they should be taking 5%-20% pay cuts, yet Brown gave away the store-for a reaosn- they gave Brown the money he needed to get elected.
That’s it, and that’s the way it will remain. You might as well go onto another project, Rex, because whining about the fact that some people got bigger pensions than you and other people, is not going to change anything–unless you plan to die whining.
Seesaw, you might as well keep believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus if you think your lines are going to stop the people from stopping your pension scams, not happening sweety pie, your scam is ending and nothing you say is going to change that fact, so keep the whoppers coming, my mission in life to shoot those whoppers down, to put the truth out there-and today everyone knows the truth and that is why places like Central Falls RI are taking 55% pension cuts-and soon CA will. So will IL.
December 28, 2011 at 8:28 am
Rex, in 2001, the housing bubble, was just beginning. The banks started going down, in the summer of 2008, and the total collapse, occured in Sept. 08. So, no, Rex, CalPERS did not know,and neither did anyone else, except the Stock Brokers on Wall Street, who knew the derivitives, they were selling were going, to explode. CalPERS would, never have encouraged individual public entities, to adopt SB400 or AB616, if they had known what was up, ahead.
December 28, 2011 at 8:37 am
Putting the truth out there, is my mission too, Rex. I rely on documented sources–not propaganda that comes out, of the mouths, of those like you. I was just forwarded a, “Guide to CalPERS Pension Facts”, tonight. The average monthly, CalPERS benefit, for all service retirements, in the 2010-2011 fiscal year is, $3065. Average length of service is 21 years, and average age, at retirement, is 60. The 12 billion dollars paid out, in benefits, resulted in an economic impact, of 26 billion dollars.
December 28, 2011 at 8:52 am
No Rex, he did not give them, huge raises. He bargained their first contract in three years, and he said that they got some things, but Management got some things, too. That is how the CB process works. He removed the cap on their vacation leave, because they were unable to take vacations, due to the furloughs and short staffing. They deserve every penny, of whatever they get, as far I am concerned. I bet you would run fast, if anyone tried to make you take a job, as a CO. And, basically, raises are not being given, in the public sector, and have not been, for the last three years. You are just venting, into thin air.
December 28, 2011 at 9:12 am
I learned the truth about Santa and the Easter Bunny long ago, Rex. You cannot stop a scam, where none exists. All of the public sector pensions in CA, were adopted legally, and constitutionally.
December 28, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Well said seesaw— and as I have ordered the poodle to do many times— show me a citation to a case— he never does—- never can!
December 28, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Rex, in 2001, the housing bubble, was just beginning. The banks started going down, in the summer of 2008, and the total collapse, occured in Sept. 08. So, no, Rex, CalPERS did not know,and neither did anyone else, except the Stock Brokers on Wall Street,
Once again seesaw gets caught up in her own little fantasy world. CalTURDS KNEW in 1999 of a worst case ROI, an average case ROI and a BEST case ROI, and they ONLY gave the best case ROI on SB400. They comitted fraud.
So once again, you are incorrect, and I am right, CalTURDS knew and engaged in fraud.
Your claim that because the housing bubble did not burst until 2008 (it was actuall 4th QTR 2007) are just spin. The housing bubble had NOTHING to do with calTURDS fraud.
December 28, 2011 at 4:59 pm
I bet you would run fast, if anyone tried to make you take a job, as a CO
#@1 I would never be hired, I have common sense, a clean record and most imnportant I don’t have Daddy or Mommy workign for gov which is the way most people are hired.
#2- there are over 1,250 applicants for each CO job.
#3-how hrd can it be to babysit grown ups??
December 28, 2011 at 5:02 pm
. And, basically, raises are not being given, in the public sector, and have not been, for the last three years. You are just venting, into thin air.
More SPIN!!! RPD gave out 5% raises-double inflation every year from 2008-2012. Jerry Clown just gave out HUGE raises to the prison guards.
The same has been going on all over this state. Clown should be CUTTING the trough feeders wages, not increasing it-we are in HUGE debt and Clown is givign out billiosn in raises.
December 28, 2011 at 5:02 pm
And, basically, raises are not being given, in the public sector, and have not been, for the last three years. You are just venting, into thin air.
More SPIN!!! RPD gave out 5% raises-double inflation every year from 2008-2012. Jerry Clown just gave out HUGE raises to the prison guards.
The same has been going on all over this state. Clown should be CUTTING the trough feeders wages, not increasing it-we are in HUGE debt and Clown is givign out billiosn in raises.
December 28, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Putting the truth out there, is my mission too, Rex. I rely on documented sources–not propaganda that comes out, of the mouths, of those like you. I was just forwarded a, “Guide to CalPERS Pension Facts”, tonight
So you are putting out false propaganda, from CalTURDS and claimign it is legit-Hahahhahaahh…you are so funny seesaw. Everything that comes out of those little typing fingers of yours is bogus!
December 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Rex, I took an extra course at an adult school, and the instructor recommended me, to a colleague. I worked for many years, as a part-timer, before I became full-time. You don’t need relatives to get a public sector job. I did not have any friends or relatives at my muni. I was fairly new to the area. Nepotism occurs in every agency, whether public or private. It is a very minute percentage of the total number of employees. I personally have nothing against it, as long as the recipients are qualififed.
I have not seen the complete Guards’ contract, but I seriously doubt that they got a yearly, five percent raise, each year, from 2008-2012. If true, they had some awesome representation. I was more interested in debunking that 8-weeks, vacation myth, which was propaganda.
You are pretty ridiculous, in your thinking. Quotes that come directly from CalPERS documents, are propaganda–but, quotes that come from the mouth of Rex, are gospel. Go figure.
December 28, 2011 at 6:26 pm
I of course am still waiting for the poodle to produce any case cite from any jurisdiction from any time in histroy proving his fraud fantasy…lol—– poor troll!
December 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm
I see Rex is busy this morning again, spinning his skewed viewpoint and posting quotes from old news articles that are no longer accurate.
You really should try reading a little about the RI bankruptcy process, since there has been absolutely no action thus far by the court there. The STATE receiver forced a temporary reduction in pension benefits, stating at the time it was a temporary fix until more reasonable long-term measures could be implemented.
RI taxes are going up to cover, among other things, the outstanding pension debts there. Taxes are going up particularly high in Cedar Falls. Don’t believe me, read the receiver’s report.
That what will happen in California and elsewhere too, Rex. Taxes are going up to cover the obligations you have for pensions and other spending. The only real alternative is a further reduction in public services. People will soon tire of that situation, so taxes will rise – even yours.
December 28, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Okay, unlike Rex, TL at least has gentlemanly inclinations….
December 28, 2011 at 7:04 pm
SkippingDog Says: “Whether the funds make their 7.25%, 7.50%, or 7.75% overall return over the next two or three decades is something we can debate and argue for the same period of time. Only hindsight will truly inform us of their status.”
Good point. What hindsight tells us about the past ten years is that CalPERS has ONLY returned 5.4 percent, slightly below the Wilshire median for large funds, 5.7 percent, and a broader Wilshire median for institutional investors, 5.5 percent. Regarding their status, I think it safe to say the median CalPERS fund is about 65% funded even though contribution rates have doubled in many cases- NOT GOOD!
December 28, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Rex, I mistook your post, referring to, “RPD”, to be connected with the Guards’ contract, that was let by Jerry Brown. Now I realize, you were referring to the Richmond Police Department. Don’t you know, that Jerry Brown, has no input or participation, in the lawful CB bargaining processes, in the City of Richmond. I have heard that employees, in the City of Beverly Hills, make huge salaries, by the way. The big picture, in the public sector, in CA, right now is that, raises are not being given. That should give you pause, to take a deep breath.
December 28, 2011 at 9:28 pm
What does hindsight tell us about the past 30 years, Captain? That’s the low end of the investment term for pension funds, with many using a 40 year investment horizon.
December 28, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Skippy, The choice of the period is critical (and easily manipulated) to support a particular position.
For example the decade of the 1970’s was quite lousy for stoccks, while 1980-1999 was VERY good, and 2000-now is again quite lousy.
You picked the past 30 years, the first 20 of which were quite good.
If you picked the past 40, the picture is not as rosy.
By the way, the 1960’s were quite lousy as well, so even the past 50 years won’t look that good.
Let’s just say that CalPERS will be REAL hard pressed to get a long-term 7.75% return. And stretching to get it (via added risk) is unfair to Taxpayers who are the backstop for losses.
December 28, 2011 at 10:30 pm
<b.RI taxes are going up to cover, among other things, the outstanding pension debts there.
That what will happen in California and elsewhere too, Rex. Taxes are going up to cover the obligations you have for pensions and other spending.
Skippy, pensions in RI were slashed by 55%. Did you miss my 5:38AM 12-28-22 post?? I have the link there, just for you.
TAXES will have to be approved by the people, and that ain’t going to happen here lil buddy.
Look at what happened in CA 2 years ago-those “temporary taxes” got crushed. Look at what happened in San Diego, sales/pension tax was destroyed at the ballot box.
You can continue to live in your dream world Skippy and seesaw, but sooner or later you wil have to wake up 😛
December 28, 2011 at 10:31 pm
RI taxes are going up to cover, among other things, the outstanding pension debts there.
That what will happen in California and elsewhere too, Rex. Taxes are going up to cover the obligations you have for pensions and other spending.
Skippy, pensions in RI were slashed by 55%. Did you miss my 5:38AM 12-28-22 post?? I have the link there, just for you.
TAXES will have to be approved by the people, and that ain’t going to happen here lil buddy.
Look at what happened in CA 2 years ago-those “temporary taxes” got crushed. Look at what happened in San Diego, sales/pension tax was destroyed at the ballot box.
You can continue to live in your dream world Skippy and seesaw, but sooner or later you wil have to wake up 😛
December 28, 2011 at 10:35 pm
The big picture, in the public sector, in CA, right now is that, raises are not being given. That should give you pause, to take a deep breath.
Yep, that is why RPD received 20% in raises over a 4 year contract (3 times inflation when private sector employees are receiving less than 10 years ago in pay), because gov employees are not getting raises.
BTW, if you have never heard of nor been to Richmond CA it is below Compton, on a scale of 1-10 Beverly Hills wouls be a 10 and Richmond a 1. Another wild comparison you made seesaw.
December 28, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Good point. What hindsight tells us about the past ten years is that CalPERS has ONLY returned 5.4 percent, slightly below the Wilshire median for large funds, 5.7 percent, and a broader Wilshire median for institutional investors, 5.5 percent. Regarding their status, I think it safe to say the median CalPERS fund is about 65% funded even though contribution rates have doubled in many cases- NOT GOOD!
Cap, don’t try to reason with Skippy, or seesaw, they just don’t have the brain power for it. Public pensiosn lost 8.5% LAST QUARTER and they will not be getting 7.75% returns in the next 30 years.
December 28, 2011 at 10:56 pm
SkippingDog Says: “What does hindsight tell us about the past 30 years, Captain? That’s the low end of the investment term for pension funds, with many using a 40 year investment horizon.”
Sorry, Dog, I thouhgt you were interested in hindsight. If you want to use 20-30 years worth of hindsight you need to factor in the rate of return of bonds during that time frame vs. the rate orf return on bonds in the present. During the 80’s Bond rates were extremely high and during the 90’s everyone was making money in equities. You seem to be cherry picking the time frame, probably because that is what CalPERS is doing.
Using Hindsight going back to 1999, we know that CalPERS predictions are worthless, and that their average rate of return over the past 10 years is substandarded compared to their own assumptions and even in comparison to:
“What hindsight tells us about the past ten years is that CalPERS has ONLY returned 5.4 percent, slightly below the Wilshire median for large funds, 5.7 percent, and a broader Wilshire median for institutional investors, 5.5 percent.”
December 29, 2011 at 2:39 am
Guys– remember what Joe Dear said in September! I feel pretty dog gone good about it by golly!
As a courtesy to you lads I took the liberty of posting it below– I think you’ll like it as well!
Have a super duper new year! — Ted!@Steeleisgod.com
My recent remarks on Bloomberg Television about the challenges for CalPERS to meet its 7.75 percent assumed rate of return have caught the attention of financial reporters, not to mention critics of public pensions including CalWatchdog.com. For those who have taken the time to watch the full interview, I state in so many words that while it may be difficult to meet our targets in the short-term, we believe it’s achievable in the long-term. The game has gotten harder, but it’s not impossible to succeed. Our investment track record is proof. We have met and beat our target over the last 20 years, earning an 8.4 percent average annual return. It is also important to point out that CalPERS has a global portfolio, not a US or developed markets one, which means we can capture the growth expected in emerging markets. We also will continue to pursue private equity and other investments that allow us to take advantage of our long horizon and liquidity. Those that read into my statements that this is CalPERS admission that our assumptions are too optimistic or unrealistic are simply wrong.
December 29, 2011 at 3:18 am
And Kids…ya gotta love this from our own Bee!
Published: Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 6B Copyright 2011 The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. CalPERS reported a $695 million profit from one of its investments Tuesday.The California Public Employees’ Retirement System said it earned the money from an investment fund that closed down after a 10-year run that ended when it sold its last asset.The profit is obviously welcome news for CalPERS. Although it earned some of the best returns in its history in the 2010-11 fiscal year, the giant public pension fund is still working to recover from the devastating losses it suffered during the 2008 market crash. The just-reported profit stems from a 2001 investment with GI Partners of Menlo Park. CalPERS committed $500 million to an unusual “hybrid” investment fund operated by GI Partners. The fund was unusual because it was a blend of real estate and private equity, with an emphasis on tech deals.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/14/4121012/calpers-earns-695-million-profit.html#storylink=cpy
December 29, 2011 at 4:18 am
Although it earned some of the best returns in its history in the 2010-11 fiscal year, the giant public pension fund is still working to recover from the devastating losses it suffered during the 2008 market crash.
I guess you misssed this part Teddy
December 29, 2011 at 2:41 pm
I guess poodle can’t read so well…lol…oh my!
December 29, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Ted, Assuming the $500 Million was invested in midyear 2001, to grow to $1,195 Million (a $695 Million gain over the 10.5 years) requires an annual compound return of 8.652%. Impressive (over this poor-performing decade) but hardly a home run.
Now had that $500 Million been in APPLE, THEN I’d really be impressed.
December 29, 2011 at 4:51 pm
It’s all context TL—You hear alot of faux doom and gloom out here—- the fact is that fund is 225 bil—-doing well over 20 years— imagine your 401k—lol
December 29, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Rex – I don’t bother to read any of your nonsense anymore.
Captain – My interest in hindsight is the same as any investor. I also know that past performance is no guarantee of future performance, but that applies to both sides of the ledger.
TL – You’re correct about the choice of time period being an easily misused tool to support nearly any position. Why don’t you review the overall performance of the CalPERS and CalSTRS systems since their inception and compare it with the corresponding ROI realized by the S&P 500 or government bond funds during the same period?
December 29, 2011 at 5:34 pm
BTW, Rex, you seem to have forgotten the high probability that the Democrats will achieve a 2/3 majority in the California legislature next year. That will give them the ability to raise the necessary tax revenues all on their own.
December 29, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Skippy, And would not those tax increases just accelerate the exodus of more of the citizens and businesses WITH the ability to pay more …. since ALL of the increased revenue will go to support outsized Public Sector Pensions & Benefits?
As the proportion of Gov’t workers and welfare recipients (relative to the total CA population) increases, so do the odds of a catastrophic financial failure in CA.
December 29, 2011 at 8:17 pm
BTW, Rex, you seem to have forgotten the high probability that the Democrats will achieve a 2/3 majority in the California legislature next year
I don’t they will get 2/3’s, but who cares if they do. You are not going to get the 2/3’s majority vote, with dems or w/o them.
More and more dems are staring down the public unions, and the majority vote won’t be there.
But you can keep believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa-and dem control and rule 🙂
December 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm
December 29, 2011 at 5:32 pm -Rex – I don’t bother to read any of your nonsense anymore.
December 29, 2011 at 5:34 pm -“BTW, Rex, you seem…
Skippy, you broke your promise within 2 minutes!!!!! That is funny!
December 29, 2011 at 8:44 pm
…and in a related matter– as I predicted out here…the court has finally ended the entire bogus redev agency fiasco which will undoubtedly have a positive budget releiving effect on employer pension contributions!!! GOOD !!!!!!
December 29, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Ted Steele Says:” CalPERS reported a $695 million profit from one of its investments Tuesday….The just-reported profit stems from a 2001 investment with GI Partners of Menlo Park. CalPERS committed $500 million to an unusual “hybrid” investment fund operated by GI Partners.”
Ted, you do know that the reported profit didn’t occur this year, so probably 90% of said profit has been distributed in years 2 through 9. Those dollars have already been accounted for and reflected in prior years earnings reports.
December 29, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Ted Steele Says:
“Our investment track record is proof. We have met and beat our target over the last 20 years, earning an 8.4 percent average annual return.”
OK, you like 20 years of hindsight. It’s nice to see the ROI, 8.4%, is significantly greater than the assumed rate of return of 7.75%. It would be much more reassuring if the funding level hadn’t dipped to 65% during those 20 years of greater than expected returns.
December 29, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Roger that– I understand your position.
December 30, 2011 at 1:33 am
Captain, You bring up an interesting point ….. why has CalPERS funding level dropped over a 10 year period where it exceeded it asset return assumption?
It seems certain actuarial valuation assumptions (beyond investment return) are way too liberal.
Likely holes are greater than assumed disability retirements, spiking of pensionable pay, etc., etc., etc.
What ELSE is lurking in the wings that will bite us ?
December 30, 2011 at 6:51 am
Captain, You bring up an interesting point ….. why has CalPERS funding level dropped over a 10 year period where it exceeded it asset return assumption?
#1= retroactive pension increases
#2= allowing air time purchases for 10 cents on the dollar
#3= allowing the infamous DROP
#4= allowing employees to retire at age 50, who then live to age 85, 90, 100 or more
December 30, 2011 at 5:02 pm
#5= Poodle still can’t bring forth ANY case authority from any jurisdiction at ANY time in history to support his “creative” legal positions! Bam ! OOOOUch!
December 30, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Rex:
#1–Standard practice of the California Legislature, for 98 years; the world-wide, financial collapse, is responsible for the current financial situation–not retroactive pensions.
#2–Airtime costs approximately $14,000 to $25,000/yr. I think airtime is a bad proposition, for any public employee, except one, just starting out. One would have to be, out of their mind, to pay $47,500, for one year, air time. The purchase price is all on the employee, and it is a practice that is fairly recent. So, you really can’t judge yet, how the practice, of allowing air-time purchases, has affected CalPERS funding.
#3–DROP is not a CalPERS program.
#4–Those are public safety people. It is very rare, for a miscellaneous employee to retire at the age of 50. The average retirement age, of miscellaneous workers, is 60. How many actual individuals, do you know, who retired, from CalPERS, at the age of 50. I bet you can’t name one.
December 30, 2011 at 11:55 pm
hmmm I wonder if the poodle CAN name one???
December 31, 2011 at 12:32 am
seeeesaw, ANY cop or ff or prison guard and tons of others CAN retire at age 50.
I know many who have. MANY! There are TWO firehwiners in San Ramon who retired at 50 and 51 with $250K and $281K pensions. Do the math.
Airtime is not $25K. It is $500-$5000, if you buy at the begining which all do. It is more than 8 years old and was a scam in 2004 and it is a scam today.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2011/12/28/pension-loopholes-costing-you
December 31, 2011 at 1:02 am
Lol— didn’t think poodle would be able to come up with a name! Of course, 4 months running and he still can’t give a legal case cite for his fun fraud theory or his unusual contracts clause elimination special!! The poor troll! OOOuch!
December 31, 2011 at 3:32 am
Well Rex, you can’t name one. Those two firefighters are in Contra Costa County–the 37 Act County pension plans are known for egregious spiking. Not CalPERS. Itsn’t it interesting that you have to go to a high-cost part, of northern CA, to find examples, which are certainly not the norm, in southern CA. I worked in a muni for 40 years, and I don’t know anybody, who retired at 50. But you know tons–no spin there, at all, Rex.
You are really in dreamland if you think airtime can be purchased for $5,000. Four years airtime, for a mid-manager, is over one hundred thousand dollars. For a worker that would be in my former rank and file category, it is about $14,000. I doubt you can even find new employees buying it. Such action on the part of workers, who are the beginning of their careers, would be a win-win, for CalPERS.
December 31, 2011 at 3:37 am
Ted Steele Says: “Roger that– I understand your position.”
Ted, I assume that was a response to my previous comment where I said: “OK, you like 20 years of hindsight. It’s nice to see the ROI, 8.4%, is significantly greater than the assumed rate of return of 7.75%. It would be much more reassuring if the funding level hadn’t dipped to 65% during those 20 years of greater than expected returns.”
Can you expand on your comment? Does the fact that returns greater than 7.75%, 8.4% in this case, coupled with declining funding levels bother you as well? There is something wrong with this picture.
I would also like your thoughts regarding CalPERS claim of 21.7% returns in FY2010-11, based on a starting point of 201.6 billion in assets, ending up at 237.5 billion. 201.6b *(1+.217) = 245.3b. Where is the other 7.8 billion? Is it possible that rapidly increasing pension payouts under the post SB 400 formulas is accelerating out of control, or is there another explanation?
December 31, 2011 at 3:37 am
seesaw, San Ramon is not “high cost” nor cal, San Jose is “high cost”. Marin County is “high cost”. San Francisco is “high-cost”. This may surprise you, but the entire Nor Cal area is not all “high cost”.
But the fact remains, I named two clowns who have GEDs with $10 million pensions at age 50 and 51. I guess you cannot counter my argument that these are scams.
You asked, I delievered.
As for airtime, the cost depends on when yoi buy it. if you buy in as a janitor making $30K and end up retiring as cop. firewhiner or City manager you have made a major scam. But that is not the issue, the issue ois NO ONE should be allowed to pay for time they did nto work. You do the work or you don’t get paid for it. Air time is a scam like DROP is a scam.
December 31, 2011 at 4:00 am
A $56,000-a-year analyst for the Michigan State Police at the time, Weiss agreed to pay $30,265 to buy five years of work credit, with $100 payments deducted from his biweekly paycheck.
5 years of “air time” for $30K
$30K/5years=$5K per year seesaw.
Not $14K-$25K, the whopper lie you claimed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-27/public-pension-miscalculation/52246538/1
Public workers pay to add work time, costing state pensions
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-27/pension-perk-costs/52247140/1
December 31, 2011 at 4:03 am
Nah Cap– I won’t be answering your questions. Someone else will though. Have a good time. I’ll share this with ya though– I was just reflecting on something today. A buddy of mine was an LAPD Officer killed on duty by gunfire in October way back in 1971. He was a splendid guy. I don’t know exactly what you were doing then Cap. I remember it like it was yesterday. It really shook up his family. His brother never really recovered from it. I worked with his brother. His wife later remarried I think, or we just drifted apart, hard to remember it’s been so long. I was thinking today that on all of these pension boards a few pipsqueeks complain about police and fire pensions. So I looked over the list of just LAPD Policemen killed since Phil’s murder on duty— it was 75. 75 more dead cops since 1971 on LAPD.
Someone else with more energy for your bilious questions can answer them. I can’t fake the interest.
December 31, 2011 at 5:34 am
I don’t know the people, or the details of their retirements, or their educational qualifications, Rex. But, it is obvious that they are in Contra Costa County, under the 37 ACT County Pension Plan–that is not CalPERS, and your post was about, why CalPERS had lost funding. The most egregious pension spking, in the State of CA, occurs through the 37 ACT plans. So again, you cannot cite examples, to back up your wild claims, about CalPERS.
December 31, 2011 at 6:01 am
seesaw, yes, I am citing one the 37 act county/muni pensions and they have more abuse than calpers, but it is still abuse and it is in gov pensions. Calpers is not as bad but they too have problems, jsut not as big, but when you’re riding a 50 foot tsunami it reall doesn’t matter if it is 51 or 52 feet tall…………the smalle difference in not material.
December 31, 2011 at 6:07 am
A buddy of mine was an LAPD Officer killed on duty by gunfire in October way back in 1971. He was a splendid guy. I don’t know exactly what you were doing then Cap. I remember it like it was yesterday. It really shook up his family. His brother never really recovered from it.
CAP!…….A buddy of mine named Teedy Steals (because he steals from the taxpayers) losy his mini brain on duty by gunfire in October way back in 1971. He was a big dorky guy. I don’t know exactly what you were doing then Cap. I remember it like it was yesterday. It really shook up Teddy Steals family because no one in it could steal as good as Teddy. His brother never really recovered from it- but I sure did 😛
I was thinking today that on all of these pension boards a few pipsqueek GED cops try to rip off everyone with their scam police and fire pensions by using anecdotal exaggerations of cops or FF’s gettign killed on duty, when a 7-11 clerk gets killed at 100 times the rate of a cop or ff. . So I looked over the list of just LAPD Policemen killed since Phil’s murder on duty— it was 75. 75 more dead cops since 1971 on LAPD. Then I looked over the list of graveyard shift clerks, construction workers, fishermen and other high risk jobs and it was 750,000 and have to laugh at the fools who try to claim GED cops are entitled to $200K epr year jobs. Funny stuff from GED cops.
December 31, 2011 at 6:49 am
Ted Steele Says: “Nah Cap– I won’t be answering your questions. Someone else will though. Have a good time. I’ll share this with ya though– I was just reflecting on something today. A buddy of mine was an LAPD Officer killed on duty by gunfire in October way back in 1971. He was a splendid guy. I don’t know exactly what you were doing then Cap….”
Ted, this forum is about pensions. If we ever meet on a site discussing murder or life altering tragedy I’ll share a few experiences with you. In the meantime, if these pension issues aren’t corrected very soon the damage caused will impact the very fabric that is holding this states society together. It is already happening. There is only so much tax that can be imposed before the desired effect, more revenue, turns negative. Safety-net programs are being eliminated up and down the state. K-14 education spending won’t be reduced when CalSTRS gets their increased pension contributions but teachers will be cut, class sizes will increase, and school infrastructure will begin to deteriorate much like our roads. The school system in California is already faltering and will probably further erode in comparison to other states and countries. What do you see happening with our once World-Class University system? Yes, the cost is becoming prohibitive.
Ted, the pension system is but one part of what is squeezing the dollars out of the CA middle class. Your flawed argument, which seems to be that people die tragically, can be re-stated until California goes to hell. Your argument isn’t in anyway a solution to a problem that is much bigger than your attempted diversion. While I empathize with the loss of your friend, and all people that have suffered tragedy on the job or in life, that isn’t an argument for the continuation of unsustainable pensions. Your argument is merely part of the problem. I think by focusing on 75 tragedies – while ignoring over 37 million people in this state, all of which are being impacted by rising pension costs, is a disservice to everyone.
If you don’t want to answer my questions, or can’t, that’s fine. But please quit with the argument that amounts to nothing more, in football terms, than a Hail Mary. The state consists of much more than a government workforce with above average compensation, lousy employee contracts, and ridiculously generous pension benefits.
December 31, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Cap— Thanks for the lesson regarding the purpose of these boards. I didn’t need it. I mention the murder of the officers only for the obvious reason that some of posters out here spew ignorant and vile commentary about civil servants. Their “opinions” about the actuarial positions of the funds, contribution schemes or skewed view of the history of collective bargaining is colored by a strange and self revealing projected hatred of cops and firemen mostly. This is what makes my post relevant. While my post is not per se a comment at all about the fiscal condition of the funds but a statement about the souls who deserve what they contracted for and often at great risk to their safety.
I couldn’t care less what you think amigo, I could not. But the other day I was reflecting on the long list of dead Officers from just LAPD. The discussion out here is often quite focused on whether these folks deserve these pensions.In the last year I have seen these workers referred to HERE as–
scum
thieves
killers
whiners
etc.
I assume you read? I’m sure you se my point. Have a great new years—- Ted.
December 31, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Cap and his Poodle buddy–
I agree by the way about the dead 7-11 clerks, fishermen, miners, construction guys, etc.—-I agree 100% with you both!
And…
If you have also employed them and contracted for generous benefits and they have performed the work…
You will have to pay them too.
Sorry to hold you to your word.
Ted
December 31, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Captain – If you’re only going to count the last decade in your long-term investment returns, you’re clearly cherry-picking the numbers.
Apply the 30 and 40 year ROI for CalPERS and you’re likely to be much closer to the truth. If you applied the ROI since inception, you’d probably be even closer and it would most certainly be positive.
When your ultimate arguments devolves to “Cops and firefighters don’t get killed often enough in the line of duty to justify their pension benefits,” you’ve completely left the realm of rational thought and discussion.
Good luck with that argument.
December 31, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Oh man is Teddy Steals having a MAJOR meltdown……you better pack it in scammer/scum/thieves/killer/ whiner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope that didn’t get you all sad Teddy 😛 I feel so bad that youa re upset 😛 It is killing me…maybe you should bury yourself your Peoples College of Law studies- that will make your pain go away 😉
December 31, 2011 at 9:07 pm
While my post is not per se a comment at all about the fiscal condition of the funds but a statement about the souls who deserve what they contracted for and often at great risk to their safety.
Great risk?? Only in your hea dlil man, only in yoru head. FF and cop, as stated, are not even in the top 10 for danger. Give your imagination a rest lil one, you are really off in lala land.
I couldn’t care less what you think amigo, I could not. But the other day I was reflecting on the long list of dead Officers from just LAPD. The discussion out here is often quite focused on whether these folks deserve these pensions
We have already been down this road a million times, NO, you GED Wonders do NOT deserve $10 million pensions at age 50 where you paid in in zero in most cases, or maybe $50K MAX if you made any contributions.
And lets not forget most if not all of the 3%@50 pension was retroactively raised, another stake thru the heart of your whopper lies.
December 31, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Skip– you nailed it—- the argument of these sad trolls boils down to just that, they don’t think firemen and cops die at a high enough clip to deserve the benefits they were promised before they agreed to do the work! —- the roi cherry pick argument is the only other thing they have left…….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
January 1, 2012 at 12:01 am
You were never “promised” $10 million pensions from me Bozo 😛
January 1, 2012 at 12:07 am
no poodle– I wasn’t promised 10…or 20 mil……it does not work that way sleepy troll…. but the workers know what they were promised, they have it in writing and they preformed the work…… good night little fella! try not to think about me….mmmmmmmmmmmm
January 1, 2012 at 2:03 am
Look Dork, I try to reason with you but you keep on spinning.
NO ONE has a problem wiht a pension you signed on at-which in most cases was a 2% multiplier. The problem was the unearned unworked for retroactive increases you didn’t do a thing for and the increase was a whopping 50% to a 3% multiplier. The retirement age was ALSO lowered, from 55-60 down to age 50. Then to top it off the avergae cop has seen 5%-9% ANNUAL raises the last 10 plus years,w hile everyone else has taken pay CUTS. So your spin and lies won’t work here, OK, and I am going to call your greedy butt out everytime., And claiming that a cop died on duty 50 years ago is not a reason to give out $10 million pensions to cops or FF’s. Google Craig Bowen and Peter Nowicki and then try to tell me there are nto $10 million pension give aways going on.
If you were in LE in the 1970’s you were making under $30K in salary. In 1985 LAPD only paid a $33K salary for entry level cop. The highets paid entry level cop in 1985 was San Jose at $39K. Today it is tripel that is some cases.
I like to spank you witht he truth Teddy-I knwo it drives you and seesaw and SKippy crazy.
January 1, 2012 at 3:29 am
Rex, you are the one who is having mental problems. Everything you say is a lie. I have told you, that my own pension will not pay out an aggregate of one millions dollars, until I am 92 years old. Yet, you insist on continuing to shout, that public safety retirees, are all getting ten million-dollar pensions, beginning at age 50. LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE!
January 1, 2012 at 4:41 pm
hmmmmm……ok……so NOW the poodle is ok with a 2% pension for cops……..well little doggy, that’s a start! Good doggy! You should run for city council where you will have responsibility for approving collective bargaining contracts. Problem solved little fella!
…and….Happy New Year!!
January 1, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Yet, you insist on continuing to shout, that public safety retirees, are all getting ten million-dollar pensions, beginning at age 50. LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE!
Google Craig Bowen and Peter Nowicki and then try to tell me there are no $10 million pension give aways going on.
January 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Rex, You said …”NO ONE has a problem wiht a pension you signed on at-which in most cases was a 2% multiplier. The problem was the unearned unworked for retroactive increases you didn’t do a thing for and the increase was a whopping 50% to a 3% multiplier. The retirement age was ALSO lowered, from 55-60 down to age 50. Then to top it off the avergae cop has seen 5%-9% ANNUAL raises the last 10 plus years,w hile everyone else has taken pay CUTS. ”
While the retroactive increases you describe were clearly not justified, and the source of much of the current unfunded liability, you haven’t thought it through when you say .. “NO ONE has a problem wiht a pension you signed on….”, as that leaves a whole cohort of 2001 and later hires who STARTED with the 3% pension.
Clearly this extraordinarily generous pension is not justified for this group as well. I’m not(at least now) calling for reduction in the accruals to date for this group, but future service accruals need to be reduced by at least 50% … and they would then still exceed the pension accruals of 90+% of taxpayers who pay for these pensions.
January 1, 2012 at 8:27 pm
TL– I gotta laugh……are you trying to make sense out of what the poodle says?
January 1, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Rex, you keep trying to spin, that the situation with the two former FF’s, in Contra Costa County, is a widespread, situation. You started off on this thread posting your criticisms of CalPERS. When you get shown, up, you trot out these two guys from Contra Costa County. Everyone knows that Contra Costa County, is the home, of the most egregious pension spiking, in the State. CalPERS does not allow such spiking, and I hope that such practices will eventually be outlawed. In the meantime, why don’t you lay off CalPERS. You are unable, to credibly discuss, that Pension Plan.
January 1, 2012 at 9:10 pm
TL, the subject of retractive pension accrulals, was settled by the CA Courts, via the Orange Country vs. Orange County Sheriffs Deputies, lawsuits. Orange County lost the case in the Appeals Court, three times, and the CA Supreme Ct. put the lid, on the case, by refusing to hear Orange County’s appeal. Any efforts or initiative changes, negatively for the future pension accrulas of current public employees will be futile, because such actions would be found unconstitutional, by the Courts.
January 1, 2012 at 10:01 pm
seesaw is 100% correct—- move to the head of the class!
January 1, 2012 at 10:17 pm
SeeSaw Said, “Any efforts or initiative changes, negatively for the future pension accrulas of current public employees will be futile, because such actions would be found unconstitutional, by the Courts.”
When things get sufficiently bad … and there is a reasonable probability that they will …. the Courts tends to find a way to allow necessary changes. If at some point it becomes clear the Plans will fail and further tax increases are not reasonable (or counterproductive), the Courts will find a way to allow reductions for future service accruals … and in a worst case scenario, to past service accruals of actives and those already retired … ala RI.
While the laws in CA differ from RI, if sufficient money cannot be made available, that difference will matter little.
January 2, 2012 at 7:20 am
TL, the subject of retractive pension accrulals, was settled by the CA Courts, via the Orange Country vs. Orange County Sheriffs Deputies, lawsuits. Orange County lost the case in the Appeals Court, three times, and the CA Supreme Ct. put the lid, on the case, by refusing to hear Orange County’s appeal.
Oh brother, seesaw WRONG again. Man, seesaw, if you had a dime for everytime you have been WRONG you would be a millionaire by nopw.
The OC lawsuit had NOTHING to do with future accrual rates.
Nice try-you and dork Teddy go back to the short bus, or try telling use again that GED cops and firewhiners are not getting $10 million pensiosn at age 50 😛
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 2, 2012 at 7:22 am
While the laws in CA differ from RI, if sufficient money cannot be made available, that difference will matter little.
Federal law is uniform, the same throughout the nation. What happens inva federal court in RI will happen in CA too.
January 2, 2012 at 3:52 pm
LOL—- the poodle hasn’t read the OC Cops lawsuit! And he was the main predictor the county would win! And now he denies the holding in the case! Oh My LOL Bam ouch!!!!
January 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm
…and Poodle—-I know you get real excited when you try to type your drivel…but my gosh, do you have a spell checker? LOL Ouch!
January 2, 2012 at 6:13 pm
LOL…no I don’t have a spell checker, IE 9 STILL doesn’t have one…….
BTW-the RI case is federal law, not state law, and soon it is going to give your pension a haircut-you can take that predicition to the bank 😛
January 2, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Oh MY, look at what I just read;
“In a landmark agreement, retired police and firefighters in Central Falls, Rhode Island, have accepted pension cuts as part of the town’s historic bankruptcy filing.
If the bankruptcy trustee accepts the proposed deal, Central Falls’ public employees would represent the first workers to ever accept pension cuts during a municipal bankruptcy, according to a recent report from the New York Times.”
KABOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 2, 2012 at 6:24 pm
I guess that settleds the question as to whether pensions can be cut by a BK court.
Seesaw, Teddy Steals, Skippy-care to offer any commentary 🙂 hehehehehehehehehe…………………………………
January 2, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Rex, go back to my post. I didn’t say anything about the OC case having anything to do with future pension accruals.
I don’t see any CA entities in banklruptcy court. Do you, Rex?
January 2, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Rex, get a clue. Those public employees in Central Falls, “have accepted’, the pension cuts. Do you even get the sightest idea, that the Collective Bargaining process, was at work, there?
January 2, 2012 at 7:51 pm
That’s right they accepted them, because they were crammed down their throats 😛
And you CA scammers with $10 million pesnions will be accepting them too!
January 2, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Do you even get the sightest idea, that the Collective Bargaining process, was at work, there?
Collective bargaining!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahahahaha…seesaw, there was bargaining-the public unions REFUSED to accept good faith negotiations and then Central Falls filed BK because of that bad faith, and then IMPOSED the cuts on the troughies. It was NOT CB at all, but imposed cuts by the BK court.
Do you not follow the news? Did you not see the trustee before filing BK tell the troughies if they did not accept the current cuts they would have bigger cuts if a BK were filed??
Well, they tried to bluff the trustee and he filed for BK, and THEN the COURT imposed the cuts-temporarily until a hearing. Now, this is the result of a FORCED cut in BK-outside of CB b/c the unions balked at the cuts, now they have bigger cuts IMPOSED on them.
Oh my seesaw, your wild imgaination is somehting else. Have you not seen the Stockton PD REFUSE to bargain for cuts in their comp???? Everyone else took cuts but thye refused!
January 2, 2012 at 8:10 pm
That’s Collective Bargaining……………………………………..
January 2, 2012 at 8:20 pm
SeeSaw,
A 50+% pension reduction is the kind of “collective bargaining” California (and quite a few other States … incl. NJ) needs.
A repeat of the 2008 equity market downturn, might bring that about rather quickly..
January 2, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Why bother EVER talking to the Poodle– he has no grasp of reality. Every post he makes and then you reply to is a rehash of 700 other mindless drivel posts…..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz dull-normal poodle
January 2, 2012 at 10:44 pm
…Seesaw—- even a brief look in to the RI case shows that you are correct— the cuts would not have occurred by law unless 75 retirees voted for it! Small municipalities in Calif would likely go the way of OC or Valejo for a variety of reasons should they be foolish enough to try the BK route…
January 2, 2012 at 11:16 pm
SeeSaw,
A 50+% pension reduction is the kind of “collective bargaining” California (and quite a few other States … incl. NJ) needs.
A repeat of the 2008 equity market downturn, might bring that about rather quickly.
TL, in 2008 Calpersa lost 36% of their portfio-if they has not their fudn would be over $360 billion today, instead it is at $220 billion, so even if it had a whopping 60% gain it woudl STSILL be short of what they were at.
Don’t listen to the dorks, they will say their $1 million house is not underwater because the bank has nto started the foreclosure procees yet and claim that they can pay off the mortgage with their McDonalds job because they have 30 years to pay it off but can’t make the next montha payment…Heheheheh…all spin baby!
January 2, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Seesaw—- even a brief look in to the RI case shows that you are correct— the cuts would not have occurred by law unless 75 retirees voted for it!
hahahhahahah75 retirees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bwahahahahahhahaha..:P Teddy, you should be a comedian, really!
Sorry Steals, the trustee IMPOSED the cuts through the BK court, if NO ONE voted for it it would not make ANY difference you GED Wonder 😉 the cuts came under FEDERAL law, and there is no federal law in BK rules or anywhere else that says 75 retirees must vote for tem-tell me, do you make this stuff up as you type>?? It is comical!
January 2, 2012 at 11:24 pm
BTW-Vallejo were fools. They should have NEVER filed BK unless the entire city clowncil was on board with going after the pensions in BK. 3 of the 5 clowncil were still in the unions pocket.
They should have never filed knowing that the pensions were off the table. If Vallejo wanted to they could have had the pensions take 25%-50% haircuts in BK court-and they should have-no cop or firewhienr deserves a $5-$10 million pension at age 50.
Vallejo was stoopidity at its finest.
But Vallejo did set precedent in that they COULD break ANY contract in BK, including the labor agreements (and the pensions if they wanted to), and the bar to break those contracts was set VERY LOW by the BK court for any future muni BK’s.
So there will be many more muni BK’s in the next few years.
January 2, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Oh—ok—-lol