The cost of retiree health care promised state and local government employees, growing at a faster pace than more-publicized public pensions, has become a common target for cuts in a string of California city bankruptcies.
San Bernardino, which filed for bankruptcy last week, lists a $2.2 million savings from a deferred retiree health payment in a three-month fiscal emergency plan said to be needed to allow the city to make payroll.
In a lengthy bankruptcy that began in May 2008 and ended last November, Vallejo cut monthly retiree health care payments to $300 from as much as $1,500, saving an estimated $100 million over time.
Stockton, in a June bankruptcy, would end all retiree health care payments, citing overly generous and costly benefits: immediate eligibility, uncapped payments, less than half of retirees covered, and a cost equal to 31 percent of payroll for proper pre-funding.
Unlike pensions, there is no widely held view that promised retiree health care is a “vested right,” protected by contract law, under a long series of court decisions. Some think promised retiree health care can be cut, depending on circumstances.
Pensions in the three bankruptcies also are protected by the deep pocket of the California Public Employees Retirement System, whose threat of a long and costly legal battle reportedly is the reason Vallejo did not try to cut pensions in bankruptcy.
Cutting retiree health care in bankruptcy was upheld last month. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein in Sacramento denied a temporary restraining order sought by a group of Stockton retirees.
Klein began a hearing on July 23 by saying he understood from filings that Stockton retirees were in a “dire situation” and that a cut in retiree health care could be “catastrophic to some of them.”
But the judge asked the retiree attorney to explain why the court’s hands are not tied by a federal regulation, “section 904,” prohibiting interference with the debtor’s political or governmental powers, property or revenues and income-producing property.
Scott Emblidge, the retiree attorney, said his clients want protection of what they believe is a vested right. He said the federal law is broad enough to allow the health care cut to be blocked as the action of an employer, not interference with governmental powers.
“At a minimum, preserve the status quo,” Emblidge said. If the bankruptcy court cannot block the cut, he urged the judge to lift the “stay” on debt collection automatically obtained by a bankruptcy filing, so retirees can seek a block in another court.
Marc Levinson, the attorney for Stockton who also represented Vallejo, said blocking the retiree health cut would interfere with governmental powers, forcing the city council to make legislative budget decisions about layoffs or other revenue sources.
Levinson said blocking the retiree health care cut would be telling the city how to spend its money. If the stay is lifted, he said, the court also would be telling the city how to spend its money, raising the question: What is the point of a bankruptcy filing?
Lifetime retiree health care from an employer, rare in the private sector, is an important benefit as public employees decide whether to retire as early as 50 or 55 as most retirement plans allow, well before eligibility for federal Medicare at age 65.
Some retiree health plans are generous. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration said active state workers pay 15 percent of their health care costs, while the state can pay all of the health care cost for a retiree and 90 percent for dependents.
Gov. Brown’s 12-point pension reform plan, presumably still under consideration as the Legislature returns today for the final month of the session, would “change the anomaly of retirees paying less for health care premiums than current employees.”
The governor’s plan said state retiree health care costs increased 60 percent in five years and will nearly double over 10 years. The deficit-ridden state general fund is expected to spend about $1.7 billion this year on state worker retiree health care.
As in most local governments, state retiree health care is pay-as-you-go. No money is being invested to yield earnings to pay for the retiree health care promised current workers in the future, “pre-funding” the cost like pensions.
Two decades ago legislation by former Assemblyman Dave Elder, D-Long Beach, created a retiree health fund for state workers. Lawmakers over the years have not put money in the fund, choosing to pass the bill for current workers to future generations.
The cost of providing retiree health care was a long-ignored government debt, often not even calculated. In 2004 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board said the retiree health care “unfunded liability” should be reported.
In 2007 state Controller John Chiang made the first estimate of the cost of providing retiree health care for current state workers and retirees: $50 billion over the next 30 years. Last February his actuaries increased the estimate to $60 billion.
A two-part report on retiree health and other post-employment costs issued last week by California Common Sense, a group of Stanford students and alumni, made a similar estimate of the state unfunded liability, $62 billion.
The report said nine of the 20 largest California cities (by budget) do varying amounts of pre-funding, but retiree health care in the rest is pay-as-you-go. The estimated unfunded liability for the cities is $12 billion.
Retiree health and other post-employment costs in the 20 cities is up an average of 36 percent since 2008, taking 3.28 percent of the average general funds. In half of the cities, the costs are doubling every four to six years, much like the private sector.
“Nationally, average annual health care costs have increased about 33 percent since 2008 for a family of four, from $15,609 to $20,728 in 2012,” said the report, citing a Milliman study assuming the family of four is insured by an employer-sponsored PPO.
Although cuts in pensions are not proposed in the city bankruptcies, Stockton and San Bernardino want to cut their pension costs by delaying or reducing payments on pension obligation bonds.
The three-month San Bernardino plan defers a $3.5 million payment on pension bonds and an infrastructure bank loan. The city issued a $50 million pension bond and has a current annual payment of $3.5 million, expected to rise to $6 million by 2021.
Stockton issued a $125 million pension bond in 2007. The city has proposed eliminating the general fund portion of the payment, $6.4 million this year, and only making the special fund payment, $1.3 million.
The pension bond insurer, Assured Guaranty, which has said bondholders will be paid in full, denounced the Stockton plan as unfairly “disproportionate.” Opponents who want to contest the Stockton bankruptcy have until Thursday to file with the court.
Vallejo had not issued a pension bond. Other bonds issued by the city had been consolidated under one lender, Union Bank, and in the bankruptcy bond payments were cut from $50 million to $30 million.
As Vallejo emerged from bankruptcy last November, voters approved a one-cent sales tax expected to yield about $10 million a year. But the budget approved by the city council in June had a $4.8 million deficit in a $78 million general fund.
Vallejo also was still struggling to cut pension costs. After a devastating cut in the police force, sworn officers reduced from 155 to 90, the new budget contained money to add five more officers.
The new positions were authorized only if the police union agrees to lower pensions for new hires. Adding to the city’s problems: Police and firefighters were not given a required six-month advance notice of new contract negotiations.
And as a result of the administrative failure, labor contracts scheduled to expire at the end of June were automatically extended for another year.
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 6 Aug 12
Calpensions 
August 6, 2012 at 12:02 pm
The ONLY way out for bankrupt cities (and MANY others on their way) is to reduce very significantly reduce the accrual rate for future service for CURRENT employees. Under bankruptcy cuts to pensioners must also be an option available to the Court.
CalPERS is the bully who says NO. While CalPERS mandate is to accurately administer Plan rules and act s a fiduciary for Plan assets, is role should certainly not include advocating for Plan participants. While employed, this is the role of the legislature, and under bankruptcy, this is the role of the Courts.
Hopefully Assured Guaranty will forcefully challenge the lack of pension cuts while slashing bond interest and principal. The Court-created “California Rule” must end.
August 6, 2012 at 3:46 pm
I think what some folks are conveniently forgetting in this debate is that a lot of now retired public safety employees were hired under an old law that excluded them from Social Security and Medicare. Public agencies shouldered all responsibility for pension and health plans and set the portions that they and their employees contributed. Whether or not it made the best business sense when viewed in retrospect, that was the law that employers and employees had to abide by.
The push for lower retirement eligibility ages was driven by workers compensation costs. Increasing demands on public safety agencies combined with an aging workforce were creating financial nighmares with respect to the costs associated with job related injuries and deaths. It made sense to collect more from the employees to help fund accelerated retirements than shell out 100% taxpayer money for spiraling workers comp premiums and disability pay.
While I certainly understand the financial hardships that everyone is having to share, it is myopic and unreasonable to blame retirees for decisions that government agencies made years ago when those decisions made sense, particularly when those agencies didn’t set aside sufficient funds to cover their obligations but instead funded new adventures.
The retirees went to work each day following the laws under which they were governed. Even when cash strapped, our cities and other governmental agencies should be held to those same laws to the best of their fiscal abilities.
August 6, 2012 at 4:42 pm
This issue is a brilliant example of why the USA should have implemented (over 60 years ago) a national health service. How ridiculous and backward; the wealthiest nation in the world having to struggle with this sort of problem in 2012 !
August 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Most of you are missing the point here.
The entire US medical system is broken and will remain broken under Obamacare.
Medicaid (medi-cal) and Medicare are broken systems that are wasting billions of US taxdollars annually.
The big pharma companies pay off the pols to get favored legislation that hurts the American consumer badly. So do all the other medical suppliers. They pay peanuts in Europe for American made medical products compared to what we pay here. That’s because the RESALE of American made drugs, equipment, etc… to the american consumer is forbidden by law. That’s why old people are being threatened with punishment for buying their drugs from Canada, etc… at much more reasonable prices.
And as long as illegal foreigners can walk into an american hospital with NON LIFE THREATENING conditions, like pregnancy, sniffles, chronic ailments (diabetes, etc..), etc… and get treated we are totally screwed. Especially with pending legislation AB 1081 which will prohibit local law enforcement from turning over illegal foreigners to the Feds for deportation unless they’ve committed past violent felonies. Felonies are fine – as long as they weren’t violent. So watch you insurance premiums continue to rise through the roof – because you are indirectly paying for all those illegal indigents who get health care for free while you are now FORCED by law to either pay for it or get slapped with a hefty penalty.
When we walk into a doctors office there should be a price list for all procedures so customers could shop around. Just like in the grocery store. But there’s not. Why?? Because everybody gets it financed through a 3rd party (insurance company) for free (medi-cal) or through an employer who pays the premium.
And the AMA intentionally keeps the number of doctors per capita low in America to keep labor prices high. The AMA controls how many seats are available in our medical schools.
This is the reason we spend 18% of our GDP on health care while all other developed nations spend between 9% and 12%.
Remember when ‘managed care’ (HMO’s) were going to be our saving grace. heh. BS. Insurance premiums are still rising at a 9% clip.
In 1980 the nation spent about $52B on health care costs. Last year we spent just short of $900B.
Do the math.
You folks are examining the trees when you should be looking at the entire forest.
Your medical system is in full destruction mode.
August 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm
The push for lower retirement eligibility ages was driven by workers compensation costs.
No it was not created by worker comp claims-it was created by CalTURDS with SB400 as a direct result of lobbying by the CHP, had nothing to do with worker comp. 90% pensions at age 50 are 100 times more costly than a workers comp claim.
And whether you agree with the decision to cut the healthcare or not it is here, and it has already happened, as in Stockton where it was cut 100%.
And CalTURDS will have a fight sooner rather than later over cutting existing pensions, b/c federal courts have already allowed it- in Central Falls RI.
August 6, 2012 at 5:45 pm
The ages for retirement eligibility were in effect long before SB400 was ever passed, Rex. Most public officials, starting with the former Governor, have admitted that SB400 was a mistake. But you, the toddler, in house, are not going to deprive yourself of a continuing hissy fit, as if someone ran off with your blankie.
August 6, 2012 at 6:07 pm
There was no age 50 retirement before SB400 seesaw, so once again you are flat out wrong………for once why don’t you learn something before spouting of your usual nonsense trough feeded “talking points”.
August 6, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Rex, I think the cutting of existing pensions in RI, pertained to the COLAs, which were 5-6%. The CalPERS COLAS, for the majority of its beneficiares, are 2% or less, depending on the CPI, and they are not keeping up with the rising costs of medical insurance.
August 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Rex, I have been a member of CalPERS since 1975. The requirements prior to SB400 were: Minimum service credit required, five years; minimum age, 50. A five-year career would have yielded less than 10% for most employees prior to the enactment of SB400, and 15% for those safety beneficiares after SB400. Otherwise, the minimum retirement age of 50 for all employees still stands.
August 6, 2012 at 6:58 pm
A few years ago I read an article about a medical care package given to staff members of State legislators that made me fall off my chair.
If you are a legislative aide (even the dork who answers the phone and cannot answer simple questions from the public about basic stuff) and you work for state legislators for 5 years (doesn’t even have to be consecutive years) at age 50 you get FREE STATE FUNDED MEDICAL CARE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
So let’s say Alvin had an inside connection and started working for Assemblyman X at age 22. He answered the phone for Assemblyman X until the legislator termed out 3 years later. Then Alvin took a year off. The next year Alvin answered the phone for Senator Y for 2 more years ending his legislator aide career at the ripe old age of 27.
At age 50 Alvin gets 100% state funded healthcare for the rest of his natural life.
You wonder why the medical system is broke?
You wonder why the State is broke?
August 6, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Where is the documented proof of your made-up hypothetical situation?
August 6, 2012 at 7:30 pm
No seesdaw, the minimum CalTURDS retirement age was NOT age 50 prior to SB400.
Cenbtral Falls RI cops and FFs took 55% pensions hits, not COLA hits, but to the entire pension, to the highest pensioners- who were in many cases making 3 times what they did when they were actually working.
August 6, 2012 at 7:32 pm
If you are a legislative aide (even the dork who answers the phone and cannot answer simple questions from the public about basic stuff) and you work for state legislators for 5 years (doesn’t even have to be consecutive years) at age 50 you get FREE STATE FUNDED MEDICAL CARE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
Vallejo had the same plan, free medical for life after only 5 years, but Stockton beats them both-free medical after only ONE MONTH! (gee I wonder why Stockton went BK???)
August 6, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Rex, try to find ONE private company that gives its workers free medical care @ age 50 after only 5 years of service.
If the private sector pulled that crap we’d be so deep in the hole that the system would never see daylight. It would literally collapse under its own weight.
These are simple facts that Teddy and Seesaw would either dispute or deny.
No one serious about saving the nation would ever be in favor of these gov scams.
August 6, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Beelz, there are very few companies that even offer healthcare while employed, most don’t offer it while employed. No one gives free halthcare after you have left, except gov, and that is why they are broke. Ave. Gov employees make TWICE what the ave private sector employee does. Idiots Teddy and seesaw are clueless….they would never have been employed outside of gov, not enough brain power.
August 6, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Gov should not be involved or adminstering most/BIG programs, they just cant do it- and if there weren’t a million gov programs and employees to run them we would be fine right now…
August 6, 2012 at 10:45 pm
For sure, rex. Gov LOVES to spend other people’s money. Consider the food stamp program. We are nearing 50M food stamp users in America. That’s one of every 6 Americans. Supposedly you have to be dirt poor to get food stamps. Naturally we don’t want people starving in America. But we don’t want people getting over either. I think the fact that kids get free breakfast and lunch at school without it being deducted from their parents FS allotment is just plain wrong. The more you give to people, the less they want to work for it and then it becomes an expected entitlement. Try to take it away and they get mad.
I think we should go back to the medical system we had when I was a kid. Mom and dad always paid for routine care and drugs. Catastrophic care and hospitalization was covered for the most part. People were a little more selective about their treatment. The drug companies charge top dollar for their products in America because they know that the insurers will cover it by tacking on higher premiums. About 9% higher every year. There should be price competition among docs too. If doc X will do a tonsilectomy for $600 while doc Y won’t do it for less than $1300 then doc Y should get the business. But if you asked a doc how much he charges for a procedure he would look at you like you had 2 heads, as if to say “How dare you ask me for my prices”. Hell, that’s the American way! How long would a store stay in business if they didn’t mark their items and only let you know how much them cost after you made the purchase??? Total BS!
August 6, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Strange that Teddy and spension are missing in action today.
I wonder if they went on vacation together??? heh. 😉
August 6, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Strange that Teddy and spension are missing in action today.
They could of at least have taken seesaw with them for a thrilling-threesome! 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 1:38 am
I repeat, Rex, “The minimum age for a CalPERS retirement is 50 now and was 50 long before the passage of SB400. SB400 was about the formula and the highest age needed to receive the maximum. SB400 enhanced the formula and changed the age to achieve the maximum amount, for public safety workers whose employers adoptede it–nothing changed about the minimum age required to retire. Two former colleagues of mine, retired at the age of 50, in 1997–two years prior to the passage of SB400–they were miscellaneous. The miscellaneous workers did not become eligible for the enhanced formulas until 2001.
I will have to seek out more details on the Rhode Island cuts. I bet those cuts were proceeds that came from the 5% and 6% COLAs.
August 7, 2012 at 1:44 am
Why would I dispute facts, Beeze. I agree that giving lifetime medical care after five years and after six months, like Stockton is crazy. I did not get lifetime medical care where I retired from–I got a stipend, after a minimum of 25 years, full-time work. You can’t paint all entities with the same brush, as you do. Salaries and benefits for those who work for public entities and for those who are legislative staff members, are apples and oranges.
August 7, 2012 at 1:46 am
Rex,l I worked for a Defense Contractor in Pasadena, when I first came to CA. Is lack of brain power the reason that you do not have gainful employment?
August 7, 2012 at 1:49 am
Rex, my spouse’s employer covered my spouse’s medical insurance indirectly, when we were actively working. He reimbursed me for the premiums I paid at my place of employment, for my spouse.
August 7, 2012 at 1:52 am
Ted posted yesterday that he was going on vacation for a week. Spension probably doesn’t want to get caught on the same page with the two of you.
August 7, 2012 at 3:32 am
Rex. Is it possible that spension is another Teddy sock puppet? Spension writes like he has a couple working brain cells so I am not sold on it. But it’s curious that both left the boards simultaneously.
I am pretty sure that Seesaw is an independent poster and not a sock puppet. Although she and Teddy have some things in common Seesaw talks a lot about her personal life. Teddy rarely discusses his personal life. So even though they seem to be tied at the hip ideologically I’m pretty sure that they are 2 separate posters.
August 7, 2012 at 3:45 am
seesawe, at least I am not a trough feeding leach 😉 But we know your brain power never allowed you to get a real job 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 3:50 am
I repeat, Rex, “The minimum age for a CalPERS retirement is 50 now and was 50 long before the passage of SB400. SB400 was about the formula and the highest age needed to receive the maximum. SB400 enhanced the formula and changed the age to achieve the maximum amount, for public safety workers whose employers adoptede it–nothing changed about the minimum age required to retire.
2%@55 was the previous formula for CHP and public safety, they jacked the pay out by 50% while cutting the retirement age by 5 YEARS!!!! ( 20%).
seesaw, my hand hurts from spanking you so bad 🙂
Beelz, why is poor seesaw dumber than a bag of teddys….errr…I mean rocks 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 3:53 am
I will have to seek out more details on the Rhode Island cuts. I bet those cuts were proceeds that came from the 5% and 6% COLAs.
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 6, 2012 at 3:28 pm
“C. Falls slashes dozens of pensions by 55%; one gets cut $41K
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:30 pm by Ted Nesi under Nesi’s Notes
City retirees hear about the pension cuts July 19
Central Falls slashed one in three of its retirees’ pension checks by more than half this month, with the majority of the city’s former public-safety workers set to lose tens of thousands of dollars a year.”
“Receiver Robert Flanders reduced 48 of the city’s 141 police and fire pensions by 50% or more, with all but three of those cut 55% from their original amount, according to financial records obtained by WPRI.com.”
I love it when trough feeders come on here and try to con everyone with falsehoods, only to get shot full of holes with the truth!
August 7, 2012 at 3:56 am
hey seesaw….where did you run off to??????? Huh???? What happened to that lie that the pension cuts came fro COLA’s?????
BAM!!!!!! More of your con and baloney lies shot down and full of holes, like swiss cheese baby………….
Beelz, looks like seesaw is done here 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 4:28 am
You really don’t understand the CalPERS pension formulas, Rex. A 2% at 55 formula means that the full 2% is not available until age 55–the employee can still retire at the age of 50, but will receive a percentage slightly less than 2%. All CalPERS members may retire at the age of 50, if they have at least five years’ service credit.
Beeze, Ted may use a different screen name each time, but he does not pretend to be a different person each time. On the other hand, Rex has gone on different forums with completely different screen names, trying to make readers think he is someone he is not.
Rex, I said I will have to check the details of the RI cuts out. I don’t know where the cuts came from–I said I
August 7, 2012 at 5:19 am
Rex the information you cite on RI is all last year’s news. How something current. I have browsed myself and come to the conclusion that the situation is still in flux. It is no falsehood that the retirees were getting COLAs of 5% and 6%, prior to the CF bandruptcy. In Providence, the pension cutting has been done through the collective bargaining process. The Receiver that abitrarially cut pensions in CF is being sued.
August 7, 2012 at 6:17 am
“A 2% at 55 formula means that the full 2% is not available until age 55–the employee can still retire at the age of 50, but will receive a percentage slightly less than 2%”
Do you have a proof source that confirms that, seesaw?
How do we know that they couldn’t retire @ age 45 with less than 2%?
I need to see a documented source support what you claim.
I think Rex is correct. I think under the old plan they couldn’t retire until 55 and under the new plan they reduced it by 5 years for public safety.
And no personal anecdotes please, seesaw. All of us have had our fill of those, thank you! 😀
August 7, 2012 at 6:48 am
You really don’t understand the CalPERS pension formulas, Rex. A 2% at 55 formula means that the full 2% is not available until age 55–the employee can still retire at the age of 50, but will receive a percentage slightly less than 2%
100% false, a 2%@55 means 55 is the MINIMUM/ YOUNGEST age you can retire. You cannot “retire at age 55 or younger-you coudl quit, but you cannot receive your benefits until age 55.
Same with 3%@50, 50 is the YOUNGEST age you can retire and draw pension benefits.
Stop the whoppers seesaw, you are either an ignoramus or just flat out lying.
August 7, 2012 at 6:50 am
And no personal anecdotes please, seesaw. All of us have had our fill of those, thank you!
add nauseum 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 6:56 am
In Providence, the pension cutting has been done through the collective bargaining process. The Receiver that abitrarially cut pensions in CF is being sued.
Who was talking about Providence RI??? I wasn’t and neither were you. Central Falls had retirees pensions CUT by 55% in BK court, not thru “collective bargaining” because we all know the public unions do not give up anything in CB;
Retired police and firefighters from Central Falls, R.I., have agreed to sharp pension cuts, a step thought to be unprecedented in municipal bankruptcy and one that could prompt similar attempts by other distressed governments.
Matthew J. McGowan, who represents the retirees, said the agreement could be groundbreaking if the courts approved it.
If approved by the** bankruptcy court**, the agreement could be groundbreaking, said Matthew J. McGowan, the lawyer representing the retirees.
Link;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/business/pension-deal-in-rhode-island-could-set-a-trend.html?pagewanted=all
August 7, 2012 at 7:03 am
Rex has gone on different forums with completely different screen names, trying to make readers think he is someone he is not.
LOL….I only comment when time allows these days and it is under Rex and one another hadle ……. and we ALL know you also use at LEAST two screen names, right “sawz”…lol…you’re such a clown seesaw, I don’t even know why i respond to your lame comments….even Teddy is better than you…..
And for the record, Teddy has used over 100 screen names at the OCR alone, he used so many he accused me of being an OCR employee b/c I kept busting him every time he used some lame handle…….and he is using ast least 2 other handles at CWD.
August 7, 2012 at 7:09 am
Do you have a proof source that confirms that, seesaw?
How do we know that they couldn’t retire @ age 45 with less than 2%?
Beelz, either seesaw is dumber than a bag of rocks or she is a liar, one of the two. t
The MULTIPLIER (the %) NEVER changes, ever. The MULTIPLIER (%) is used to MULTPLY the number of years (30, 35 whatever) worked to give the pension amount. The MULTIPLIER is constant, only the YEARS worked are VARIABLE, and can lower the forumla, and the MINIMUM age is the youngest age you can draw a pension.
Under seesaws BS claim if a cop started at age 20 they could reitre at age 30 with 30% of their salary for life (10 years x 3% per year=30%). That would be a pension drawfor 50 years at 30%. Obvicously that would never work.
August 7, 2012 at 8:11 am
No Rex. I am a CalPERS member and I have all the charts; and I have known the rules for decades. 2% at 55 means that the full percentage of 2% is not available to the employee until he/she reaches the age of 55. I will repeat–all CalPERS members can retire at age 50, if they have a minimum of five years service credit. The miscellaneous retirement formula that is in affect for my former colleagues is 3% at 60. If they have not reached age 60 yet, they may still retire if they have at least five years service credit, and are at least 50 years of age.
August 7, 2012 at 8:24 am
Beeze, I have all the CalPERS formula charts for miscellaneous workers. It is entitled, “Your Benefits/Your Future”. All of the formulas start with age 50, and 5 years service credit. Before SB400 was passed, all employees at my former workplace were on the 2% at 55–all employees were eligible to retire at age 50 with at least five years service credit. I’m looking at the 2% at 55 chart right now–it starts with age 50; an employee retiring at age 50 with 5 years service will receive 7.13% of the highest year’s salary if retiring. If the employee as 20 years, he will get 28.52% of salary; if he has worked 30 years, he will get 42.78% of salary. Of course we both know that virtually nobody retires with only five years credit. Stop the ridiculousness here!
August 7, 2012 at 8:31 am
No Beeze! Noone may retire before the age of 50, on CalPERS, regardless of how many years service credit they have. Of course the multipliers change–it begins at 1.426@ at 50 and increases to 2.418% at age 63+. The 2% at 60 formula begins at 1.092% at age 50 and increases to 2.418% at age 63+. There are also 2.5% at age 55 and 2.7% at age 55 formulas, and my favorite, the 3% at 60, which begins at 2% for age 50 and increases to 3% at age 60. You dopes are wrong!
August 7, 2012 at 8:33 am
Stop calling me a liar, Beeze. I am the most honest person on the planet!
August 7, 2012 at 8:36 am
Get on your computer and look at Providene RI Rex. The pension crisis in CF is a state problem. Like I said, the Receiver that arbitrarially cut those pensions is being sued, and the CB process was used in Providence. That’s what unions do.
August 7, 2012 at 8:42 am
Yes, Rex, I have two screen names, but I don’t use both on the same site. I already previously explained to you why I have one name here and a different name on the Bee. They are both me, and I admit that. I still remember “Wilma” in Beaumont, one of your past screen names.
August 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm
So much BS and so little facts on these comment blogs. Bottom line age 50 eligibility has been around for a really long time. The multiplier was ratcheted up for agencies that adopted the accelerated retirement plan. Some other agencies were handing out golden parachutes instead to get rid of the older folks. However with the multiplier speed-up, the employee’s contribution to the retirement plan took a pretty big leap in most jurisdictions. My monthly retirement deduction was around a grand. It was a big bite but it was an investment in the future. Not all the employees wanted that trade-off either. Regarding workers comp, my small agency’s premiums went from around 100k to half a mil per year as the average workforce grew older. This was during the Bush administration so the Obamasterics can’t blame him for the problem, but perhaps for a lack of a coherent solution.
It may be that the contribution formula for the employee’s share of costs for the accelerated multiplier wasn’t correctly calculated in some agencies, although at the time the state had a sense of growth euphoria and politicians seemed to believe that money was going to keep rolling in.
Regardless this story was about health insurance costs, not hand puppets, screen names, immigrants or food stamps. It appears that this country has lost the ability to focus. Perhaps the state should issue Ritalin stamps.
Time to go 10-10 on this subject.
August 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm
“Bottom line age 50 eligibility has been around for a really long time”
Proof source, Mr. Big Shot. You walk into the room and we’re supposed to take your word as gospel? Get over yourself. Link the proof document or shut up. And, no, don’t pull the same crap as Seesaw and tell us that you have an old formula chart called “Your Benefits/You Future” that you got your info from. We didn’t fall off the cumquat wagon yesterday. 😉
The government paying out retirement benefits @ age 50 or 55 is such a major scam when the average person lives to age 80 or so. That is one of the reasons this country is in so much trouble.
Btw, wildhorseguy…..you’re not another one of Teddy’s alter-egos, are ya? 😀
August 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Seesaw, I only called you a liar once when you willfully misrepresented a statement I made on the board and once I called you out you refused to retract it.
Under this topic I think you’re just grossly misinformed and due to your stubborn nature refuse to acknowledge your errors.
If what you said is correct you would direct us to a proof source that substantiated your claim. Since it deals with public pension regulations and entitlements it should be readily available to those with an interest.
Since you are hestitant I question your claim and your motive.
Hydrate and stay cool. It’s going to be a hot one.
August 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm
The both of you keep coming at me and I sometimes get mixed up about which one is calling me what. You do not make sense when you say I am misinformed. I worked in the public sector and I know the rules. I have the charts right here. Anyone can get them. You say I am hesitant–I have no way with the equipment I have, to send you a chart through the computer. Do you have a City nearby that is a member of CalPERs? Go there and ask them to show you the CalPERS formula charts. I will repeat as many times as I have to, until you understand–any CalPERS member who is at least 50 years old and has a mimimum of five years pension credit, may retire with whatever amount the chart allows. I had two former colleagues, who retired in 1997 at the age of 50, on the 2% at 55 Plan–now how did they do that? Because its in the Plan!
August 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Its not an old formula chart Beeze. Its the chart that is in effect at this moment! Why would you be so upset about someone getting a retirement at age 50? Unless one started at age 18, the amount is peanuts. I do know a former manager who just retired at the age of 53–he did begin at the age of 18–rare. And he was not public safety–he was miscellaneous on the 3% at 60 Plan–because on the 3% at 60 Plan, one may retire at the age of 50, with a multiplier of 2%–one of those numbers that Rex claims never changes. At age 53, the multiplier is 2.30%. You both need to get over yourselves!!
August 7, 2012 at 5:17 pm
I thought this posting was about health care. We’d certainly be better off if California joined Canada’s or Germany’s health care systems. Their economies are doing just fine, BTW.
The Affordable Care Act has been wrongly demonized. It is not great, but all in all, is a little bit better than what we had before. My main objection is it could have been a whole lot better. But people will always act irrational and unlike shrewd consumers when it comes to their own health care. All sorts of emotions come into play.
As for the ongoing interminable pension debate. Military members can retire at age 37… everyone here agree with that? And as far as I know, the military pension system in the US is entirely pay-as-you go. Now I absolutely think we must pay military pensions, but I don’t understand why we don’t pre-fund them. And should the retirement age be 62 or 65?
Health care for any battle veteran should be 100% covered, IMO.
August 7, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Beelz, seesaw is 100% WRONG. But please seesaw, link us to the page you claim allows one to retire under a different formula. If you are right and I am wrong I will say so. I don’t think you are right. And yes seesaw, you have posted under two DIFFERENT SCREEN NAMES. Trying to fool us, so stop the BS that I am trying to “fool” people by using different screen names.
August 7, 2012 at 5:47 pm
spension, I thought you were on vacation?????
August 7, 2012 at 5:53 pm
As for the ongoing interminable pension debate. Military members can retire at age 37… everyone here agree with that?
False.
Military personnel can retire after 20 years of service, not automatically at age 17. And if you were in 30 YEARS and had attained the rank of general your penion would be less than a local CA GED cop at age 50 with 30 years in (So if you joned the military at age 33 and did a 4 year enlistment you would not be able to to retire at the end of the term, age 37).
Let me repeat that, a general in the military would have a smaller pension than a local CA GED cop with the same amount of time in after 30 years service.
August 7, 2012 at 6:20 pm
There is no such thing as “retiring under a different formula” Rex. All the CalPERS formulas are the same as they have been for years, except when the 3% at 60 was introduced. They all begin with age 50 and progress up to the maximum percentage/age.
August 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Never posted with two different screen names on the same site, Rex. I am “SeeSaw” everywhere except the SacBee. I am “Sawz” on the SacBee–simple.
August 7, 2012 at 6:26 pm
How can I be 100% wrong when the charts are what they are Rex? So step up for once and be a big man–admit that you did not know that any respective pension formula does not allow for retirement as early as age 50, with a minimum of five-years service credit.
August 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm
My error–“Any respective formula (CalPERS) does allow for retirement as early as age 50″………….
August 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Yes, Spension the forum did go off-topic, starting with the first post by TL–followed by Rex making wild claims about SB400. I worked in the public sector for 40 years, plus 8 months, and I know the rules. I am not going to sit here and let such false comments go unanswered. Its just too bad, IMO, that there are not more current retirees who are willing to step in here, and reject the false crap that Beeze and Rex spew.
August 7, 2012 at 6:44 pm
“I had two former colleagues, who retired in 1997 at the age of 50, on the 2% at 55 Plan–now how did they do that?”
Back in 1997 I owned a dog that could go “meow”.
“Its the chart that is in effect at this moment!”
What page are you on, seesaw. I’m not arguing with you about how it is now. I am questioning how it was back in the good old days pre-2000. Back then I do not believe workers could retire @ 50 and collect a county or state pension. I contend they had to wait until 55. No discounted formula applied.
Why couldn’t a worker retire @ age 45 and take an even steeper discount back in the day, seesaw? Why was the cutoff age 50?
I don’t care about the form you’re holding in your hand or what your friend did in 1997, seesaw. None of that matters.
You need to either link the proof source showing County and State workers could take early retirement @ age 50 in the good old days or give us the full website address.
Otherwise your claim is rejected.
If you prove me wrong I will be tickled pink to fully acknowledge that you slapped me down on this topic and that I was totally in the wrong and clueless.
The ball is in your court, seesaw.
I will even accept proof sources from spension or wildhorseguy.
If you can’t come up with the goods, don’t make the claim, okay?
August 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Rex and Beeze:
In the Browser, type in “CalPERS Retirement Formula Charts”–then you will see a title, “State Miscellaneous Members 2% at 55 Formula. After you see that, come back and apologize to me for all the crap you sling for no reason!
August 7, 2012 at 6:54 pm
I use the 1997 example, because Rex insists that everything changed after SB400. SB400 introduced the 3% formula–nothing else changed with the other formulas that existed prior to SB400 in 1999 except that another Bill was passed in 2001 to allow entities to adopt a 3% at 60 formula for the miscellaneous members.
August 7, 2012 at 7:02 pm
“The Affordable Care Act has been wrongly demonized. It is not great, but all in all, is a little bit better than what we had before”
Hi, spension. We were worried about you. I thought you and Teddy might have eloped together.
I have already voiced my opinion on American health care. You can see it above Aug 6 – 5:07pm. Try to pick that one apart if you can.
Obamacare makes things worse. His corporate sugar daddies now have the citizens by the short hairs. The IRS can hit us with huge penalties if we refuse to pay the piper and buy health insurance. It’s fascism in progress. When the state and corporate powers merge. Oh, Obamacare does no apply to ilegal aliens. DId you know that? They can continue to use ER’s at will and offload the entire cost to the taxpaying public. So we must by law pay for our own health care and fund theirs too!
Obamacare does not address cost at all, spension. It only SHIFTS the costs to the productive middle class worker. His health insurance will continue to rise @ 9% a year to pay for everyone else.
Until the whole country collapses economically!
August 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm
“After you see that, come back and apologize to me for all the crap you sling for no reason!”
You still don’t get it, seesaw. Where is the chart that describes the OLD system pre-2000 w/ regard to early retirement? We contend that age 50 retirements were impossible back then for public workers. Everyone had to wait until 55. (w/ the exception of disability retirements).
Do I have to draw you a map???
I know what the system says today. The question is how did it operate before the changes were implemented?
August 7, 2012 at 7:49 pm
There is no doubt that retirement at age 37 is possible for the US military… sure, you must join up at 17, and put in 20 years. Why is that OK? And the fact is: because of that kind of super-early retirement, California safety employees argue for retirement at 50 or 55.
http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/military-retired-pay-overview.html
Still, no pre-funding at all for US military pensions. The debt is in the trillions for future liability. Why is that OK? Military pensions are also… DEFINED BENEFIT, which are more economical, as I’ve proven already.
The Affordable Care Act has all kinds of cost reducing elements… one part once called `Death Panels’ by the low-IQ crowd.
Don’t start throwing around the word fascism, it is inappropriate and just more splooge. You got to get a driver’s license to drive, for example (my father drove here in CA prior to the time where licenses were required). That is not fascism either.
You need car insurance too to drive.
OK, so you say that is all a personal choice… you don’t have to drive if you don’t want to.
But just try not filing your 1040, and see what happens to you.
Everybody needs health care, everyone. All the Affordable Care Act does if force people to pay in advance. I find that to be responsible, not fascism, not by a long shot.
Which is not to say US healthcare is perfect. Let Germany or Canada, two countries with good economies and good healthcare systems, take over ours. Calling them fascist is just splooge.
August 7, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Nothing changed Beeze. The rules have always been age 50 to retire with a minimum service credit of five years. I already told you that I had two colleagues that retired at age 50, each, in 1997 on the 2% at 55 formula–the formula that existed at my entity prior to the upgrades. When I tell that you say you don’t believe old stories. How about you come up with something to disprove what I say. You don’t really want to know the true information–you just want to call everything you disagree with a lie, because you don’t want any egg on your face.
August 7, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Beeze, the book I have, that contains all the local miscellaneous charts, is dated 2006. I also have a booklet dated in 1984 with the 2% at 60 chart. We could retire at age 50–it is the exact same page as the 2% at 60 chart in the 2006 book. I could also come up in due time with a 2% at 55 chart, prior 2000 which will show that those formulas have been the same, both prior to and after 2000. Give me a mailing address and I will send you the copies. Or give me a bustling public location in LA that I can get to by Metrolink and I will bring them to you.
August 7, 2012 at 8:56 pm
“Where is the chart that describes the OLD system pre-2000 w/ regard to early retirement? We contend that age 50 retirements were impossible back then for public workers”
Click to access History_CalPERS_Retirement_Benefits.pdf
1941 – when CHP officers could retire at 50 with 20 years service.
1968 – when local safety officers could get 2% at 50
1975 – when miscellaneous workers could retire at 50
1999-2002 – when lots of annual factors went up to 3%.
August 7, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Okay, thank you, spension.
Unless Rex can find something awry with your proof source I fully admit I was misinformed and in error w/ regard to the minimum retirement age or Calpers employees pre-2000.
Seesaw, it appears that you were correct and I was wrong. Savor the moment. There’s a first for everything.
My only question is: ‘In 1975 could misc. workers retire @ age 50 if they had only 5 or 10 or 15 years vested in the system?’
Final comment: no wonder the fricken government is bankrupted. In 1941 (over 70 years ago) when the avg lifespan was probably only 63 a CHP cop could retire @ age 50. Today the avg lifespan is 80 for ex-cops and the retirement age hasn’t changed on iota.
Only in the fricken government could that happen.
August 7, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Never posted with two different screen names on the same site, Rex. I am “SeeSaw” everywhere except the SacBee. I am “Sawz” on the SacBee–simple
==
TWO different names seesaw, just like I said- simple.
August 7, 2012 at 10:59 pm
“CalPERS Retirement Formula Charts”
====
OK, I was WRONG!….I nevr knew that the formula went down and allowed retirement at a lower formula before 55, or allowed a higher formula after 55….
Oh well, I evem a clock is correct twice a day 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Man, I cant believe seesaw was right about that. I don’t know what hurts more, seesaw being correct or knowing that the state has been allowing ANY employee to reitire at age 50 since the dawn of man………………………. 🙂
I take back all the bad things I said about you seesaw 😉 I thought you were just up to your old tricks.
August 7, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Beelz, I have to take a vacation, I can’t post here until I rcover from seesaw being right for once 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Wow, Rex and BZ, you have earned some respect.
I think in 1940 a 50-year old white male in the US could expect to survive to age 72… (22 years)… now it is to age 79 (29 years)…
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html/
(all other males: 1940 survival was to age 67).
August 7, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Yeah, seesaw one-uped us today fer sure, rex. I’ll never live this one down. Glad Teddy isn’t around to rub it in. Oh well, every puppy has her day.
Being allowed to retire @ age 50 in 1941 is one thing. Being alllowed to retire @ age 50 in 2012 is quite another since the lifespan has increased 15 years or so. So if planet earth is still around in 2100 and people are living to 100 will the government retirement age still be 50? Who’s going to pay for all this crap.
Boy oh boy, I’m glad I won’t be around to worry about it. I’ll be long gone by that time. I am just afraid that regular people are going to start hanging government workers from lamp poles if this continues. I sure hope not. I would hate to see that happen. But when people are pushed into a corner and forced to live in poverty because they have to pay massive salaries and huge pension to government workers – well just I’m afraid that people will start to lose it.
Gerald Celente once said “When people lose everything and have nothing left to lose – they lose it”
August 7, 2012 at 11:29 pm
spension, the average CalPERS male retiree lives to 80, according to CalPERS. Women live to 84. Public safety live to 81. And the CalPERS lifespan study represented all races. Not just white people. So we need to compare apples with apples here. My point is that as the lifespan increases the pension entitlement age in government should correspondently rise too. That is a perfectly logical expectation. One reason the state is bankrupt is because the retirement age has not gone up for government workers. Unless that changes the system cannpt survive. Normal private sector workers won’t stand for it. Congress is already talking about raising the social security age again to 70. That’s total bullshit when government workers continue to retire as early as age 50.
No way can you argue that point, spension, without being willfully obstructive and disingenuous.
August 7, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Seesaw’s not a bad old girl, rex. Sometimes she gets a little uppity, feisty and arrogant – and needs to be put back in her place – but I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. She probably means well even though her tone is abrasive and caustic at times.
But yeah – she whooped both our butts today and we took it like men. She must be gloating like an old coondog who just caught the rabbit.
Enjoy, Seesaw. Bask in your victory, dear. I promise that they will be few and far inbetween. 😉
Don’t go on vaca too long, rex. It’s a full time job trying to fight these rascals off on my own. Especially when Teddy returns. If Skippy shows up they might get the best of me.
August 7, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Timeline of events;
Well, I was just going thru the “History of Calpers”;
1. 1932-CHP had to work until age 60 and have 20 years of service in until 1939. 1%@70, normal retirement age is 65, but workers can retire at age 60.
2. General members had to have 20 years of service to vest or they got back their contributions plus interest
3. 1939- MEMEBR agencies were allowed to let public safety retire at age 55.
4. 1941-CHP age lowered to 50-20 years minimum
5. 1945-saftey can retire at HALF pay @ age 55, 1%@60
6. 1953-2%@55 for safety
7. 1954-pensionabke amount is changed from last 5 year average to last 3 year average.
8. Local safety gets 2%@50.
9. 1973/74- sick leave is allowed to count towards pension or service year credits.
10. 1975- General members can retire at age 50.
11. 1981- General employees no longer required to pay THEIR share, the muni can “pick up” the employees share.
12. 1983-CHP gets 2.5%@55.
13. 1985- Safety gets 2.5%@55.
14. 1990-Local muni’s get 2%@55.
15. 1999-SB400
Click to access History_CalPERS_Retirement_Benefits.pdf
August 7, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Yeah, seesaw one-uped us today fer sure, rex. I’ll never live this one down. Glad Teddy isn’t around to rub it in. Oh well, every puppy has her day.
LOL…can you believe how bad this would have been with Teddy and his sock puppets!!! I shudder to even think of it 😉
August 7, 2012 at 11:52 pm
One reason the state is bankrupt is because the retirement age has not gone up for government workers.
It is more than that Beelz;
1- Life expectency has gone UP by 25%;
2-Retirement ages have gone DOWN;
3- Pension benefits have gone UP by 50% .
So, anyone of these would be a problem, all 3 make a total failure of the system.
seesaw and her cronies should be upset with safety, and the scam they have been allowed to engage in.
August 8, 2012 at 2:35 am
Well, I wasn’t here today anyway. Just glad I don’t have to go see Beeze in person. I have never pulled tricks Rex–don’t know why you think that in the first place.
August 8, 2012 at 3:41 am
Get a Life !
August 8, 2012 at 3:58 am
I have one, thank you.
August 8, 2012 at 6:04 am
Don’t get cocky now that you got one in the win column, seesaw. Rex and I have schooled you so many times in the past that we feel like fully tenured instructors. I feel like I deserve vesting in the public pension system. The public service that rex and I have contributed to community education should get honored at both the State Capital and each County seat of government in So. California. We are messengers of the truth. If rex and I had our own blog it would go viral. People would subscribe and pay to read our stuff. We’d give you a complimentary subscription since you’ve thrown us so many softballs that we’ve hit out of the park and made us look good. For that we are grateful.
August 8, 2012 at 3:29 pm
spension, how could you say that Obamacare is an improvement? The reason for health care reform in the first place was to gain control over costs. The CBO itself has confirmed that Obamacare will do nothing to contain costs. The CBO says that health care costs under Obamacare will continue to rise at a 9% annual clip. So how did Obamacare solve anything? Plus, the productive middle class will get hit hard since they’re the ones who are going to be forced to finance it. As I told you before, Obamacare won’t even apply to illegal aliens. They will still be able to walk into any ER and get taxpayer funded treatment. Pregnant illegals can still go to any US hospital to dump their kids then get free housing, food and medical. How exactly does that address the cost issue? So your opinion on Obamacare seems as cockeyed as your claim about the pension expense ratios. Sometimes you make a good point on a topic. And then you go sideways with far-out comments about how Obamacare is an improvement. No it’s not. It only throws us deeper and deeper in the hole. Tell me how it improves anything when it comes to cost.
August 8, 2012 at 6:33 pm
I thought the CBO said repeal of the ACA would *cost* $109 billion.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
The ACA does increase costs, mainly because health coverage is extended to people who don’t have health care already. Interesting study in Oregon recently, where the state used a lottery to determine who got subsidized health care… so 2 groups, insignificant statistical difference between them (age, sex, health, etc). Subsidized health care didn’t reduce costs due to preventive medicine, but at the same cost greatly improved healthiness.
There are lots of elements, including a board of physicians, in ACA that seek to reduce costs. Of course the health care industry will fight like mad to keep getting all their trillions. Who knows if it all will reduce costs in the end. But there is no proven alternative either… whatever system you propose, it will be subverted both by lobbyists and individuals who want the government so spend $10 million to save their kids life. Is that a surprise?
In any case, health care is a wild mess. One of the best articles on it all is this one:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/
But it is a bit far afield from pension discussions.
The table I quoted was 79 year age of death for a typical male white 50 year old, in 2004. CalPERS retirees don’t typically retire at 50, but maybe at 60 or so. A 60 year old white mail survives until 81, according to that table. There is no big discrepancy.
The point was to start at 50 because one could retire at 50 starting in 1941, and compare the life expectancy in 1941 for a 50 year old to recent data. I think the life expectancy for a 50 year old rose from 22 years in 1941 to 29 years today, a 32% increase.
In any case, the fact that the military allows retirement at age 37 definitely influences the safety employees to argue for early retirement too. And then other state employees get on the bandwagon.
August 8, 2012 at 7:15 pm
In any case, the fact that the military allows retirement at age 37 definitely influences the safety employees to argue for early retirement too.
Absolutely, totally, 100% FALSE.
The fact that the “military” can retire after 20 YEARS-not “age 37” has nothing to do with a GED cop or FF job, anymore than it does a 7-1 graveyard shift job-which are far more dangerous.
Spension,why don’t you stop your ridiculous, absurd, crazy woman “comparisons”……..Thank you.
August 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I’ve frequently heard FF and Cops complain that in the Military you can retire way earlier… it is as early as 37 if you enlisted at 17:
http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/the-military-retirement-system.html
About 40 years of payment, pay-as-you-go all from the taxpayer with no investment earnings helping out. The total dept for all military pensions is in the trillions… never talked about.
Defined Benefit too.
Gotta pay those military pensions, but why doesn’t the costliness of the funding mechanism (pay as you go) as well as the early retirement age (as early as 37) get any scrutiny?
August 8, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Beelz, I just over heard a Firewhiner speaking to a taxpayer, and record the cnversation-enjot 🙂 ;
Firefighter: “You want answers?”
Taxpayer: “I want the truth!”
Firefighter: “You can’t handle the truth!”
[pauses]
Firefighter: “Taxpayer, we live in a world that has fires, and those fires have to be extinguished by men and women with hoses. Whose gonna do it? You? You, other Taxpayer? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for lower taxes, and you curse our chili cookouts. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That our obscene salaries, overtime, benefits, and pensions, while immoral, probably saved my vacation home in Lake Tahoe. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, provides jobs for those who clean my houses and wash my cars. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at unemployment and foreclosure support groups, you want to be, you need to be me, because you’re unemployed and your house is in foreclosure. We use words like overtime orgy, pension spiking, free taxpayer-paid gas for our personal vehicles. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending our obscene salaries, overtime, benefits, and pensions. You use them as a cry for mercy. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a taxpayer who rises and sleeps under the unaffordable illusion of public safety that I provide, and then questions the compensation I extort from you to provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a ladder, and rescue a kitten stuck in a storm drain. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”
Taxpayer: “Did you screw the taxpayers?”
Firefighter: “I did the job I…”
Taxpayer: “Did you screw the taxpayers?”
Firefighter: “You’re Goddamned right I did!”
August 8, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Yes, spension you can retire in the military after 20 YEARS, not at age -which you claimed….. if you enlisted at age 17 and did 20 YEASR!!! then you could retire at age 37, but not at age 37 w/o the 20 years in-and many times the military will prevent you from re-enlisting right before you hit the 20 year mark, to deny the pension, so it is NOT automatic.
August 8, 2012 at 9:03 pm
All I claimed was it was possible to retire at age 37 with a military pension. That is true. I never claimed anything about the number of service years necessary to get that retirement, or, whether it is automatic. You have inaccurately embellished my assertion.
My assertion remains totally true and accurate… you can retire at age 37 with a military pension. And that means about 40 years of payments are necessary on average, if that retirement happens, and the person survives until age 77, which is typical.
As I said, the earliness of the retirement from the military definitely influences the safety pensions in California. Now of course you get nowhere near 3%/year in the military pension. That is a different malignancy in California. But I do think he drive for retirement at 50 originates in comparison with the US military, where retirement at 37 is possible.
Again: military pensions in the US are totally pay-as-you-go, as far as I know. No pension fund at all. Pension costs paid on the fly by the taxpayer… much more expensive in the long run than the type of funding employed by CalPERS, CalSTRS, and UCRP, where the investment proceeds from the pension fund provide 1/2 or 2/3 of the $.
August 8, 2012 at 9:05 pm
HAH!
What a scam!!! Big ‘reform’, eh??? More of the same. The middle class guy who’s productive gets screwed again!!!
“Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released a new cost estimate for Obamacare incorporating the Roberts opinion, which upheld the individual mandate as a tax. Previously, the CBO estimated that some 27 million Americans would pay some $54 billion in penalties through 2022, and still go without health insurance. Yesterday, the CBO updated the numbers, predicting that some 30 million Americans will pay $55 billion in taxes and still go without health insurance”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-obamacare-will-provide-less-at-greater-cost/article/2503034
And illegals continue to get FREE HEALTH CARE while citizens must buy theirs or get socked with a big penalty!!
HAH!
Land of the free and home of the brave!!! 😀
August 8, 2012 at 9:28 pm
All I claimed was it was possible to retire at age 37 with a military pension.
==
Not piossible unless you ave 20 years in. The key is service years- not age.
August 9, 2012 at 12:02 am
Rex, WTF? No matter how many service years you have in California government, you cannot retire at 37. That is my point. I don’t get your repeated flak… you obviously agree that military retirement at age 37 is *possible*, and then the taxpayer is on the hook for about 40 years of payments. And my point remains: safety employees in the California view themselves as deserving as US military, and their goal is to push the first age of retirement down to 40 or 37, and just base their benefit on service years, and evade the minimum age. Don’t get why you are flakking this point.
And why doesn’t the US have a pension fund for the military, say, invested in treasury bonds? Huh? Why is it pay as you go? The savings of a treu pre-funded pension fund would be at the level of $0.5 trillion, if treasuries used.
BZ, why link a news article rather than the CBO report itself?
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
“What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.”
ACA reduces the deficit, according to the CBO.
Illegals are a whole new tangent. Why don’t you propose a solution rather than splooging about the? Maybe the time has finally come, 50 years after digital computers became widespread, for a national ID card linked into just about everything (voting, taxes, etc). And then ramp up all the penalties for illegals and hiring them. I’m just tired of no-one seriously trying to solve the problem.
California spends $1 billion/year on the costs of prisons for illegals. What a waste. But their guards get good pensions!
August 9, 2012 at 12:18 am
All Obamacare does is shift costs from the productive citizen to the leech. The producer gets screwed again. I would rather have Canada’s system than Obamacare. Canada provide the same medical care a lower % of GDP. Costs for healthare will continue to rise under Obamacare when we’re already spending 18% of GDP. I am waiting for the whole system to implode as the boomers hit their retirement peak. heh. Watch and learn, schoolboy.
I have a solution with the illegals. Implement Operation Wetback II and model it after what the Eisenhower administration did. Don’t tell me deportation doesn’t work. Horsecrap. It works just fine and Eisenhower proved it. And no free healthcare. Only lifesaving emergency care. Sore throat, tummy ache, ear ache, pregnant? Either pay cash or go south, young man (or woman) go south. That’s my solution, brother.
I am damn tired of illegals stealing resources from our underclass citizens who can barely survive. Damn tired. Americans come first. The rest can go back to where they came from and change their own government instead of sneaking into our country and stealing from us!!!! 😦
August 9, 2012 at 12:26 am
“California spends $1 billion/year on the costs of prisons for illegals. What a waste. But their guards get good pensions!”
That’s probably the smartest thing you’ve ever said, spension.
But your figures are off. It’s alot more than $1B.
We have about 143,000 state prisoners. 25% are illegals. That’s about 37,500. It costs about $50,000 to house one prisoner per year. Do the math, buddy.
And that’s just STATE prisoners. We aren’t even including the FEDERAL illegal prisoners and those houses in LOCAL jails.
Absolutely horrendous!
August 9, 2012 at 12:39 am
We have about 143,000 state prisoners.
==
We had 190K prisoners, so if we are now down to 143K they are not counting “local prison”, or county jails under Brown’s “realignment”
August 9, 2012 at 12:43 am
Rex, WTF? No matter how many service years you have in California government, you cannot retire at 37. That is my point. I don’t get your repeated flak… you obviously agree that military retirement at age 37 is *possible*, and then the taxpayer is on the hook for about 40 years of payments. And my point remains: safety employees in the California view themselves as deserving as US military, and their goal is to push the first age of retirement down to 40 or 37, and just base their benefit on service years, and evade the minimum age. Don’t get why you are flaking this point
suspension, just say the military can retire after 20 service years, at 50% pension. It can be as low as age 37, but not all age 37 can retire (in fact very few) but ALL who have 20 service years can retire. Cop job is NOT military service, and firewhiner is even further from military service. Cops should work until age 68 like everyone else. I can find work for them at the school cross walk if regular cop work is too hard, same with fire whiners. Plenty of work to do in gov for able bodied employees.
August 9, 2012 at 1:07 am
But you *can* retire at 37 with a 50% military pension. That remains my point. And I’m not arguing that California safety are right and proper in their argument. I’m just saying they make the argument that they are as deserving. Personally, I have no problem with military battle veterans getting the age-37 benefit. But what about a US military person who has rarely seen the outside of an office while on duty?
BTW, the CalPERS benefit table is at…
Click to access pub-6-2percent-55.pdf
Someone with the minimum vesting period (5 years) who retires at 50 would get 5.5% of their salary (not safety employees, obviously).
To get 50%, you’d have to wait until at least age 52 and have 35 years of service.
The $1 billion figure comes (among various places) from:
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/investigations/122630554.html
BZ, all insurance systems screw the thrifty, careful, healthy, able-bodied people. (except Defined Benefit pensions, which reward the long-lived).
Insurance in general reward the careless. It is a bear. But the only thing worse is… no insurance at all.
Get serious: why not a national ID card, with the highest of technology implemented. India is way ahead of us already. Either you want to save the billions or you want antiquated ideas of no `big brother’. Google , the banking system, Facebook, etc are already `big brother’.
August 9, 2012 at 1:39 am
“We had 190K prisoners, so if we are now down to 143K they are not counting “local prison”, or county jails under Brown’s “realignment”
We had about the same as Texas, rex. 170,000 or so. But you’re right. Many are being transferred to local jails. So the total population hasn’t decreased much. The latest count I could find was 143,000 for state prisoners. The difference being that we spend about $50,000 per inmate per year. Texas spends less than $20,000.
Cops should work to 68. You bet. I have never seen such crybabies as cops. The most overrated workers in America. Some idiots kiss their butts like they are the end all be all of the nation’s heroes. That is why they have inflated egos. Most are dumber than doorknobs.
August 9, 2012 at 5:07 am
But you *can* retire at 37 with a 50% military pension. That remains my point.Only if you have a minimum of 20 service years credit.
August 9, 2012 at 5:13 am
The difference being that we spend about $50,000 per inmate per year. Texas spends less than $20,000. .
Texas doesn’t have $200K-$250K per year GED educated prison guards either. 90% of prison costs is employee compensation. Did you see that 52 y/o police chief in Stockton that “retired” after only 8 months on the job??? …….After he said he would stay 3-5 years minimum??? These are the “best and brightest” the gov keeps telling us they hire, and why we need to comp these GED wonders $200K per year 😉 ……..Oh, and he is now working his new job at the DA’s office making another $90K per year, because according to him, he is “way too young to retire”… only in gov could a scam like this work, never in real life in the real world, never.
BTW Beelz, you may have you noticed if you have been lurking at CWD, Uhaul and Queeg are MIA, looks like Teddy took his sock puppets on vacation with him 😉
August 9, 2012 at 5:16 am
Check this shat out:
“The data come “from the U.S. Census’s Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that nearly 110,000 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011”
110M on welfare in America. Food stamps, free housing, medicaid, etc… heh.
And that doesn’t even count social security and medicare. heh.
Don’t believe me? Read it for yourselves:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-100-million-now-receiving-federal-welfare_649589.html
There’s no fing way this nation survives. It just can’t. Too many leeches.
But one plus is that it keeps people from rioting……until the money runs out. heh.
And Obama wants to bring in more indigent foreigners. heh.
Totally boo-foo nutszoid!!! heh. 😀
August 9, 2012 at 5:21 am
“Did you see that 52 y/o police chief in Stockton that “retired” after only 8 months on the job???”
Yeah, I read that. rex. I believe he walked away with a $204k pension after 8 mos. on the job too.
Total fing ahole.
“BTW Beelz, you may have you noticed if you have been lurking at CWD, Uhaul and Queeg are MIA, looks like Teddy took his sock puppets on vacation with him”
Naturally. You sniffed out that stink a long, long time ago, rex.
Why does CWD let him pull that crap anyway? Is the website that hard up for posters?
I never go there anymore. They lost a lot of website clicks when they lost me. I wonder if their ad rates dropped yet? Maybe the banks will roll over their loans. heh. 😉
August 9, 2012 at 6:29 am
“But you *can* retire at 37 with a 50% military pension. That remains my point.Only if you have a minimum of 20 service years credit.”
But a miscellaneous CalPERS employee must with until at least age 52 and have 35 years of service to get a 50% pension. And yes, I think CalPERS is too generous at that, but the military situation is even more generous.
“Did you see that 52 y/o police chief in Stockton that “retired” after only 8 months on the job???”
Yes this guys pension of $204,000/year is twice as big as it should be. However, he did have 36 years of service as a California safety employee. (Name is Tom Morris). Fairly irresponsible not to mention his 36 years of service and focus only on the 8 months as the Stockton Police Chief.
http://www.cevol.org/page6/page6.html
BTW, I don’t know where the highest salary, or average of 3 highest years of salary came from. Morris clearly benefitted
from that.
Social Security uses an average of 35 years of your salary, inflation corrected. In inflation corrected average of your 10 highest years would be my suggestion, and with a graduated payout scale… 1.5%/year up to $50K/year, 0.75%/year up to $100K/year, that is it, no pension beyond $100K/year (but let that increase with inflation in the future).
August 9, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Hey Mr. Glass Half Full –
I noticed you had no comment about the number of Americans on welfare, did ya?
110M is 35% of the population. Over one of every three Americans on WELFARE (not including social security or medicare).
How’s that for failure mode???
We are evolving into a 3rd world banana republic.
It is unsustainable – especially with a stagnant GDP.
But everything is fine, isn’t it, Mr. Glass Half Full???
HAH! 😀
August 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm
We are evolving into a 3rd world banana republic.
No, we have already evolved into a banana republic, where the richest 1% own everything and make all the rules b/c they have bought off the gov…..think I am kindding? Just look at the latest scam law trying to eb passed by the state legislature, AB2452, which allows our good old trough feeders in “public safety” to collect up to $300K if they die from any number of illnesses (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, you name it-it’s in there) at ANYTIME after they retire, even 35 years after they stop working. Current law allows 4 1/2 years after retirement. Passed 69-4, and there are more than 4 repugs left in SacTown.
August 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Yes this guys pension of $204,000/year is twice as big as it should be. However, he did have 36 years of service as a California safety employee.
Hmmm…36 years??? At age 52??..Hmmm…
OK, lets do some 3rd grade math.
Earliest age to get hired into a cop job= 20.5, GED cops age at retirement=52, or 31.5 years service credit. 31.5 does not = 36 😉
Go back to grade school, learn how to count on BOTH fingers next time.
August 9, 2012 at 5:24 pm
“Go back to grade school, learn how to count on BOTH fingers next time”
Thanks for schooling spension for me, rex.
He’s notorious for writing before thinking.
If I corrected all his mistakes with a red marker it would look like I dumped a bucket of red paint on his writings. 😀
He won’t respond to the FACT that over 1 of every 3 Americans are collecting some sort of welfare (excluding social security and medicare which aren’t welfare programs. OVER 1 OF EVERY 3!!!!
My God. No wonder the indigent foreigners swarm us. Stick your hand out and you too shall receive!!! 🙂
What a failed system we have.
And AB2452 is a real jewel.
Why do the families need an extra $300,000. Don’t cops have f..ing LIFE INSURANCE??? That’s what LIFE INSURANCE is for!!!!
Republican legislators get union bribes too. Don’t let them kid you. Most are as dirty as the dems are!!! 😦
August 9, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Yup, I’m wrong about his service employee credit duration… couldn’t have been more than 32 years. Nonetheless, 32 years is way, way longer than 8 months, which is all that you mention.
Morris started volunteering as a junior cadet, a voluntary position, when he was 15 or 16, in 1972. His birthday is indeed in September, 1956. I was unsure of which number was inaccurate or what happened in his bio, but I erred in thinking the 36 of service listed in his bio was employment.
Of course his double-dipping and high pension are way out of line.
As for welfare, yuck, I don’t like it.
No comment from you guys on the fact that we don’t pre-fund military pensions in the US, thus wasting trillions, and the fact that retirement at 50% full salary is available at age 37 in the military after 20 years of service…. miscellaneous CalPERS must wait until age 52 and have 35 years of service to retire… even that is too generous IMO.
August 9, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Yup, I’m wrong about his service employee credit duration… couldn’t have been more than 32 years. Nonetheless, 32 years is way, way longer than 8 months, which is all that you mention.
well, it wasn’t even 32 years-it was at MOST 31.5, and if the average private sector person starts working at age 18 and works until SS kicks in at age 68 that is 50 years, or 67% LONGER thank GED cop worked, yet GED cop gets a $204K pension PLUS a new $90K job, while the SS private sector employee gets $1200 a month after working nearly twice as long.
Can you say SCAM?? I can.
And CulTURES is a corrupt, fraudulent organization and should be prosecuted fro fraud.
August 9, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Rex you missed by at least 30 years, and now you are complaining about me missing by 0.5 years…. WTF?
Still no comment from you about 50% @ 37 for military retirees, all pay-as-you go, no pension fund at all. I have no problem paying military retirees a healthy pension when they are…. 55 or 60, but 37? And why don’t we pre fund it? Would save trillions.
August 9, 2012 at 11:50 pm
The hardships in the miltary are much greater than in civilian public safety. Moving every 3-5 years is damn hard on a family. Most soldiers have to go on exercises and unaccompanied overseas tours and are away from their families for years. There are early morning alerts called requiring the soldier to get out of bed and report to the company within a half hour. Cops and firewhiners do none of that.
Cops and firewhiners don’t have particularly dangerous jobs either. Not even in the top 10 most dangerous. I don’t think one firewhiner in Orange County has ever lost his life in the line of duty. Not in the last 50 years. I think there was one OC cop who got shot by some loon outside a 7-Eleven and died. I can’t remember any others in a long, long time. If the job were that dangerous more would die. But it’s not. In fact, being a 7-eleven clerk is much more dangerous than being a cop and the 7-eleven clerk gets close to minimum wage and no pension at all.
Cops and firewhiners should get compensated half or less that what they get today. And they should be required to work until at least 65 before collecting a dime of retirement.
August 10, 2012 at 12:01 am
If Stockton manages to stiff the creditors with zero pain to Calpers then the rest of California is phucked in the muni bond market. It is in Sacramento’s interest to sacrifice the lambs in Stockton and they will. If the insurers are stiffed, Stockton will deteriorate to a nothing anyway and the pensioners will try to foist the bill to the state. Once this starts multiplying, unless CA legislators find the ability to pluck money from their behinds, they will pass changes to stem the rot because CA will also find itself locked out of the muni market.
August 10, 2012 at 7:45 am
If Stockton manages to stiff the creditors with zero pain to Calpers then the rest of California is phucked in the muni bond market
That is CalTURDS plan, but CalTURDS does not make those decisions, it will be the federal court, and they are not going to pay CalTURDS 100 cents on the dollar while stiffing everyone else, just won’t happen. CalTURDS will take the same haircut everyone else does, mark my words.
The federal court is not going to let the state and their flunkie employees game the federal system. Everyone will be getting tthe exzct same haircut.
If they do stiff the bond holders no muni in CA will be able to sell bonds again. Ever.
August 10, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Beelz, did you happen to see the Wall Street Journal this morning?? It was noteworthy for two articles, #1-the DoJ is not going to prosecute Goldman Sucks for perjury in the mortgage meltdown b/c they say they don’t have enough evidence-yet the SEC got $550 million from them in a civil settlement-what are the odds>> Hahahahahahahaha….#2) a computer programmer for Goldman Sucks was convicted of stealing some proprietary trading code last year in federal court and the court of appeal tossed out his conviction, and the feds could not re-try him, so what does the state do-they CHARGE him with the same crime, which is so rare your chances of being struck by lightning are greater. Wall Street owns the Congress/Government.
August 10, 2012 at 7:58 pm
“Beelz, did you happen to see the Wall Street Journal this morning??”
Yeah, I did, rex. The system is corrupt beyond repair. When the justice system is owned by the corporations we are living under fascist rule. Sorry, that’s the truth. There is really no other way to say it. When the state and corporate powers merge it is the classic definition of ‘fascism’. That is not even disputable. Fact cannot be disputed. It is not opinion. It’s fact.
When GS sold the toxic securitized investments to unwary buyers (thus causing the meltdown) the GS insiders sent emails to one another joking about selling “crap” and “flying pigs” to their clients. They knew exactly that they were committing financial fraud. Not only that – GS bought up CDS bets AGAINST the poisoned investments as soon as they sold them to investors – ACTUALLY BETTING THAT THE TOXIC INVESTMENTS WOULD BLOW UP ONCE SOLD!!!
And with evidence like that the prosecutors couldn’t prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bullshit.
The entire system is corrupted and gamed.
There is no reason to start a small business in America if we have to compete against these crooked bastards.
Let it all collapse.
August 10, 2012 at 11:17 pm
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Frederic Bastiat
Now you knows who owns Obama and his administration, don’t ya? heh. 😉
Did you know that Holder and Brewer of the DOJ both worked for law firms that made all their money from the big banks prior to their government appointments? heh. 😉
Don’t believe me? Look it up. heh. 🙂
You still think you live in a 1st world nation, spension??? 🙂
August 11, 2012 at 12:01 am
MBIA & Assured vs CalPERS & Stockton – GREAT ARTICLE that just went online
At issue is CalPERS threat to Stockton officials that any attempt to reduce pension benefits will lead to a long and costly legal battle between the City of Stockton and CalPERS, and Stockton not asking CalPERS to share in the pain. Some of you will remember that CalPERS employed the same Big-Bully strategy effectively when Vallejo declared Chapter 9. It is difficult for a broke city to fund staff let alone even more legal fees so they succumb to the threats. The Stockton bankruptcy is different because the city sold over 100 million in Pension Obligation Bonds. The payment of those bonds is being almost completely eliminated under Stockton’s “Pendancy Plan” (financial plan during bankruptcy). Since the bond’s are insured the Bond Insurer’s are left holding the bag. Only these insurers also have deep pockets and the ability to litigate.
Now the Bond Insurers are fighting back because the only creditor not being asked to share in the pain is CalPERS, even though pension costs are listed as major factor in the city‘s bankruptcy. Once again CalPERS is claiming what is known as the “California Rule” which grants constitutional protections – pensions & formulas are guaranteed from the employees first second on the job until retirement (they can never go down but they can go up, even retroactively). I’ve never bought into that argument but many have, and the claim is regurgitated daily.
This article reads like an overview of the legal battle to come while also using the Judges comments in the retiree medical case to frame a potential conclusion. Good stuff. Here are a couple of excerpts:
“CalPERS’s general counsel, Peter Mixon, put out a statement last week on the Stockton bankruptcy, before the bond insurers filed their formal objections but after Assured threatened to do so. “The obligations owed to the public workers of (Stockton) have priority over those of general unsecured creditors, including bondholders,” Mixon said …
That faith puts California state law on a collision course with the federal bankruptcy law cited by Assured and MBIA. Their position is that Stockton has not met its federal law obligations under Chapter 9. CalPERS will presumably respond that Stockton may not cut its pension fund obligation under the California constitution. Expect to see the bond insurers unleash the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and Stockton and CalPERS to counter with the Contracts Clause and its analog in California state law.
The fight may turn on the intersection of Chapter 9 and the 10th Amendment.”
You’ll have to read the rest – I don’t want to ruin the ending for you.
Federalism fight in Stockton’s Chapter 9
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/08_-_August/Federalism_fight_in_Stockton_s_Chapter_9/
August 11, 2012 at 2:09 am
“CalPERS general counsel, Peter Mixon, put out a statement last week on the Stockton bankruptcy, before the bond insurers filed their formal objections but after Assured threatened to do so. “The obligations owed to the public workers of (Stockton) have priority over those of general unsecured creditors, including bondholders,” Mixon said …
The so called “CA Rule” and Mixon’s claim that a STATE LAW will somehow trump a federal court’s duty of equity are a joke.
The Supremacy Clause will wipe out the CA State Rule and state law allowing pensioners to go to the front of teh line and not share the pain, since they both originate from a CA court and the CA legislature, which is subordinate to federal law.
I guarantee you that CalTURDS will take a haircut just like everyone else will, just like the GED cops and firewhiners in Central Falls RI did (a federal case).
What is truly sad is that the GREEDY $100K pensioners- who should take a voluntary cut since they can live on 1/5th that amount- are going to hurt the pensioners who are only receiving $10K-$30K pensioners, people like seesaw.
I laugh at CalTURDS claims and bullying tactics in a federal court with a deep pocketed opponent.
August 11, 2012 at 2:37 am
This is what have been saying the last 5 years about state pensions and BK law;
That would seem to undercut any CalPERS and Stockton argument that Stockton is not permitted to reduce its contractual obligation to CalPERS — especially because Klein goes on to tackle >>>**the question of whether state law prevails over federal law in Chapter 9. It does not**,<<< the judge said flatly. "The federal bankruptcy power also, by operation of the Supremacy Clause, trumps the similar contracts clause in the California state constitution," he said. "In sum, even if the plaintiffs' benefits are vested property interests, the shield of the Contracts Clause crumbles in the bankruptcy arena."
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/08_-_August/Federalism_fight_in_Stockton_s_Chapter_9/
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Teddy and the Sock Puppets (Queeg and Uhaul) out for the 10 count!!
August 11, 2012 at 3:39 am
I get more than that Rex–don’t worry about me. The Stockton case, whatever comes of it, will not affect my pension. In the meantime, the sad thing to me is that you gloat and appear so happy that certain individual pensioners from Stockton might be affected. Shame on you.
August 11, 2012 at 3:39 am
Anybody here review the recent FAQ published bt the CA Legislative Analyst. The way I read it, the FAQ is suggesting that pensions are not protected. It’s all going to be decided by a court anyway but I do find the FAQ interesting. My take is that pensioners simply cannot get away without a haircut, CA has a vested interest in not letting that happen and yes the insurance firms have deep pockets too. Calpers is blustering and simply cannot take on more of these situations as they will inevitably crop up when other cities realize that bk can be used to cut the pensions.
August 11, 2012 at 3:42 am
I do agree with the earlier viewpoint that the 100K pension pigs need to take larger cuts but that is probably not the way it will shake out. The pain will be broad and in many ways unfair.
August 11, 2012 at 3:54 am
Frankel’s article is very well written, good link. Probably won’t stop Mixon from emitting stinky hot air, good for nothin gasbag.
August 11, 2012 at 4:57 am
Now playing at a theater near you:
http://2016themovie.com/trailer/
Seriously, who the F is this guy? He spent millions of dollars in litigations fees to preclude releasing his BC. Then he posted it on his website. Subsequent LE investigations have revealed the evidence shows it was a computerized generated BC, not a scan of the original. In other words, a fraud.
Purportedly he was a scholar at Columbia and Harvard. Yet he refuses to release his transcripts. Why? Most scholars are proud to show others evidence of their achievements.
He campaigned in 2008 on being an open POTUS. Open my butt. He is so damn secretive many of us are trying to figure out who the hell he really is! And you can’t blame us!
If this man is reelected we are screwed royally. A lame duck Obama is as dangerous as having a wild grizzly bear roaming inside your home. God help us!
August 11, 2012 at 5:12 am
“The Stockton case, whatever comes of it, will not affect my pension”
You don’t understand, seesaw.
Stockton is the proverbial canary in the underground mine. The judges know what’s coming and they are making preparations. So they are floating ways to violate the sacred pension system. And once they find the legalese they need – what is said is Stockton does not stay in Stockton. It is rolled out across the country. Like everyone else you will have to settle for less. Alot less. Better to prepare now for the inevitable. This is not 1950 anymore, seesaw. It’s 2012. Things change. Sorry. 🙂
August 11, 2012 at 5:13 am
The only pensioners in danger are the pensioners in the cities who are undergoing bankruptcy–they are the respective creditors of those respective cities.
August 11, 2012 at 5:25 am
“The only pensioners in danger are the pensioners in the cities who are undergoing bankruptcy–they are the respective creditors of those respective cities”
Every city is in trouble, seesaw, They just don’t know it yet. heh.
L.A. is in BIG BIG fiscal trouble, seesaw. You must be asleep at the wheel if you aren’t aware of that. Haven’t you heard Villagairosa sound the alarms? And if a dem sounds the alarms you know there is BIG BIG trouble ahead.
Can’t you take out a lump sum now? If I had a big pension coming that’s probably what I would. A bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.
Even a damn dog is smarter than the people managing your pension money, seesaw. When a dog has a bone in his mouth he doesn’t make a down payment for a bigger one. He buries the damn one he’s got!!! You can only kick the can so long before you finally break your foot!!! hah! 😀
August 11, 2012 at 5:38 am
I get more than that Rex–don’t worry about me. The Stockton case, whatever comes of it, will not affect my pension.
So what if you get more seesaw-there are still the majority of Calpers retirees getting less than $40K per year, and the greedy cops and fire whiners at age 50 with $100K-$300K+ pensions worth up to $10 million dollars are going wipe those people out. That SHOULD bother you. I guess it doesn’t. It should bother the managers at Calpers, it should bother the entire legislature-including all the dems who put this wrecking ball into motion, they are going to wipe out the small Calpers retiree.
August 11, 2012 at 5:48 am
In the meantime, the sad thing to me is that you gloat and appear so happy that certain individual pensioners from Stockton might be affected. Shame on you
I never gloated at all, just stating legal facts, which I have stated for the last 5 years.
But since you mentioned it, I am SUPER HAPPY, GLAD, GLOATING, THROWING A PARTAY! over that loser dirtbag Stockton police chief that said he was going to be chief for 3-5 years and then jumped ship on the citizens of Stockton with a $204K per year pension and promptly went to work for the DA at $90K per year after JUST 8 MONTHS!!!!……., hell yes I am glad he is going to take a cut-he is getting 10 times the median salary of a stockton resident in his $204K PENSION alone, a pension he did not even contribute 10% to.
I am glad people like you seesaw are no longer able to rip off the poor and middle class for your low life trough feeding buddies. Put that in your gloat pipe and take a few hits and see how it feels,
August 11, 2012 at 5:59 am
The only pensioners in danger are the pensioners in the cities who are undergoing bankruptcy–they are the respective creditors of those respective cities.
100% wrong again seesawe-as usual.
It will apply to ALL cities, not just those in BK, any muni having cash flow problems will say to the public unions- RENEGOTIATE YOUR 3%@50 (and other) fraud pensions or we will file BK and break the contracts.
All the muni will have to do is THREATEN to go into BK and break the contracts, that is it- they don’t need to file BK, just threaten it.
BK is a land of equity, where you can break the pension contracts if they cannot be paid- BK court is a hammer, and if the public unions try to play chicken they will get HAMMERED by the BK court.
August 11, 2012 at 6:31 am
Wrong Rex, as usual. Most entities are not anxious to claim bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is horrible–look at the City of Vallejo that paid out 12 million dollars in legal fees. The city of Vallejo workers and retirees still have their pensions; the workers of Orange County still have their pensions after their bankruptcy in the 90’s. Nothing will change as far as pensions are concerned.
August 11, 2012 at 6:34 am
I have a pension Beeze, and no need to take out any lump sum. I am awake–I know the situations as much as you. You seem to be the one asleep at the wheel–we had a world-wide financial collapse in 2008. It was not caused by public workers.
August 11, 2012 at 6:37 am
The people running CalPERS are professional investment officers and actuaries, Beeze. They are much smarter than you.
August 11, 2012 at 6:44 am
I didn’t read anywhere that the retired Police Chief of Stockton is going to take a cut Rex–where did you read it? Or is it just a wish that you put in your head? Predictions don’t count when made by you Rex. I have been reading your predictions for three years–none of your predictions have ever come true yet.
August 11, 2012 at 8:29 am
Wrong Rex, as usual. Most entities are not anxious to claim bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is horrible–look at the City of Vallejo that paid out 12 million dollars in legal fees.
seesaw, why do you always backtrack on your comments when I prove you wrong????
#1- I NEVER EVER said any muni was “anxious” to file BK. Didn’t day that. You claimed that NO muni pensions would be affected by BK, except those who file/filed BK. I said false. I said the THREAT of BK was all that was needed to reduce CURRENT pensions, if the BK court in Stockton reduces the pensions in BK, which they will. I never said anything about munis being “anxious” to file BK. Stop putting false words in my mouth!!!!!!
#2- Vallejo was a perfect example of what NOT to do in BK, leave the biggest liability in place-PENSIONS- and not try to break the contract and lower the costs. Mark my words, Vallejo wasted their BK filing, and they will be BACK in BK very soon, b/c they are already having problems paying their bills, again, and they still have GED educated cops and fire whiners earning/comping 15 times the median salary of the average Vallejo resident.
seesaw,you better get with the program and put all of your energy into stopping the firewhiner and cop rip offs. Because if you don’t they are going to take down all of the public employees, all of them. They account for only 1% of Calpers $100K retirees but cost Calpers 10% of their pension funding every year. Do the math.
August 11, 2012 at 8:36 am
I didn’t read anywhere that the retired Police Chief of Stockton is going to take a cut Rex–where did you read it?
I said he did not deserve the $204K pension he is receiving. I said he is a con man, a fraud. A rip off artist, do YOU seesaw disagree with that????
PS, Stockton is going to have to cut pensions, or have their BK dismissed by the federal court. I read the briefs filed by the bond insurance companies. The fight is on with CalTURDS, and CalTURDS is going to lose based on the health care reductions already ruled legal, the ruling against Stockton public employee retirees (or was it Vallejo??) who had their health insurance cut will soon be applied to the pensions.
I predict that the fraud con man former police chief will get a haircut on that $204K pension-and YOU seesaw should be shouting DO IT as loud as you can from the roof tops, b/c it is con men like him who are going to crash the entire Calpers system and take all the little guys (like you) down with him.
August 11, 2012 at 8:39 am
SeeSaw Says:…..we had a world-wide financial collapse in 2008. It was not caused by public workers.
Public employees were partially responsible for the financial collapse.
I would say 50% of the problems were from public employees and the other 50% from recession, both equally blameworthy. The fact is the trough feeder system is/was unsustainable, the recession just speed up the collapse.
August 11, 2012 at 8:50 am
SeeSaw says:….The city of Vallejo workers and retirees still have their pensions; the workers of Orange County still have their pensions after their bankruptcy in the 90′s. Nothing will change as far as pensions are concerned
#1- Vallejo did not attempt to cut pensions, they should have but did not have the deep pockets to fight CalTURDS, and CalTURDS said they would litigate it to death, Vallajo caved on thjat threat.
OC went BK b/c of high risk bets (dirivatives) that went south, not because of pensions. Pensions were not the source of OC’s BK in 1994.
Pensions ARE the source of Stockton’s BK. Pensions are going to be challenged. I have 1) read the legal briefs by the bond insurance companies,2) read the decisions already filed on similarly situated healthcare that was already cut, and 3) CalTURDS legal position relying on state law and legislation. Stockton’s pensions will get cut, I guarantee it.
August 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm
4 minutes and 35 seconds of raw truth:
August 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Its evident that Stockton was irresponsible in its financial dealings–the straw that broke the camels’ backs in this recent spate of bankruptcies was the abolishment of Redevelopment by the Governor and the Legislature. That fact is as plain as the nose on your face–everyone is avoiding speaking about it.
Go back and read you own post–you said you were going to have a party because the former Police Chief in Stockston was going to lose part of his pension.
If any respective pension was obtained illegally, I support CalPERS taking actions in that area, as they have been doing. I do not support taking pensions or partial pensions away from retirees with larger than usual amounts, if they were obtained legally. I know PS people and I can assure you that there are no rank and file PS people getting 100K retirements at the age of 50. I support all public workers, past, present, and future.
August 11, 2012 at 5:19 pm
“I know PS people and I can assure you that there are no rank and file PS people getting 100K retirements at the age of 50”
Sorry, seesaw. But you’re full of crap.
OCERS was forced to release a list of retired OCSD officers getting $100k or greater pensions. Many were sargeants or other rank ‘n file employees. There were over 500 on the list of $100k or greater pensions from the ONE agency.
This is true of all public safety agencies in California. It is a complete scam and for you (who claims to be reasonable aqnd fair) to approve of it is disgusting.
August 11, 2012 at 5:34 pm
All at the age of 50 (which is Rex’s claim) ? Sargeant is not rank and file–it is management. Impossible for there to be over 500 PS retirees getting 100K+ pensions from one county. All of the CalPERS recipients getting 100K+ pensions number about 2,000 out of almost 500,000. Orange country alone, even though it is a different pension plan–could not have over 500 PS retirees making 100K. Please show a link to the list, showing the titles, the retirement amounts, and the age at retirement.
Be fair, now, in your assessments of my comments: I said I approve and support pensions that were obtained legally. I have no problem with CalPERs lowering pensions that were obtained fraudulently, which it has been in the process of doing.
August 11, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Speaking of sock puppets, Teddy must have taken Uhaul and Queeg on vacation with him 🙂
August 11, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Sorry, seesaw. But you’re full of crap.
Thank you Beelz, someone had to tell her 😉 he fact is EVERY cop and FF in Vallejo will get over $100K in pension b/c their base salary is over $100K, for the rank and file lowest position, patrol. Almost every cop and FF job in CA today has a BASE SALARY of $100K (or close to it) for rank and file, including lowest level sworn job positions.
Remember, the AVERAGE cop and FF salary in CA went up 97% from 2000-2010, they were AVERAGING close to 10% COLA’s/Step increases. That includes prison guards also. Inflation was 2%, 2.5%, private sector wages have remained flat or gown down since 2000, and these clowns were receiving 9%-10% annual COLA’s.
It doesn’t surprise me that seesaw supports the public safety pensions (even tho they are wiping out everyone else)-even the fraud clowns like the Stockton police chief, she has never seen a trough feeder pension she feels was not “earned”, she has a cognitive dissonance disorder.
BTW thanks for re-posting “fire hero gets schooled”, it never fails to make me laugh and chuckle, b/c it is so on the money 🙂
August 11, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Impossible for there to be over 500 PS retirees getting 100K+ pensions from one county. All of the CalPERS recipients getting 100K+ pensions number about 2,000 out of almost 500,000.
ALL retired cops/FF/PS in the last 2-3 years have $100K+ pensions.
Last time I checked , there were more than 9K in the Calpers $100K club, which was 2% of Calpers retirees who were at $100K plus, but that 2% accounts for 20% of the pension costs. 9K is NOT 2K seesaw, where did you get that 2K number from (please don’t tell me, I do NOT want to know ).
BTW seesaw, that 2% is growing exponentially, so seesaw, you either cannot do math or you’re in denial.
http://database.californiapensionreform.com/
August 11, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Rex, a cop would have to be a complete brainstem to work in LE for 25-30 years and not attain the rank of at least a sargeant. And contrary to what seesaw said – the rank of sargeant is not an executive or management. He’s a ham ‘n egger just like the other cops on the beat. By seesaw’s logic a corporal would be an executive manager too because he can tell the recruits what to do. heh. 🙂 To make Lieutenant you just have to show an aptitude to be a kiss-ass and to do as you’re told without question – even if it’s unethical to do so. And if you’ve been a cop for 25-30 years and not make at least $100,000 you are either a total bonehead or you’ve been way too honest/ethical and had your career sabotaged by your superiors.
Personally I don’t think seesaw believes half the crap that she dishes out. I think she just says it to aggravate us and to start an argument. No one with a lick of common sense would possess such a belief system. I give seesaw more credit than that. I think she at least has a couple brain cells inside her skull. 🙂
August 11, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Rex, in 2011 it was reported that there were 12,200K in CalPERS $100k plus pension club. That was a 34% increase over 2010 and a 99% increase over 2009.
Oh, and there were 5,300 CalSTRS retirees in the $100k plus club and 20,000 CalSTRS retirees collecting between $75k and $100k.
Smoke a little of that, seesaw! All facts, dear! 🙂
August 11, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Yes, Rex, I obviously was not thinking of the right math–2%–I was thinking 2,000. Though, I absolutely disagree with you that the base salary of every rank and file PS worker, at the time of retirement, is a minimum of $100,000.
The Sargeant might be a ham-n’-egger, Beeze, but he/she is management, nevertheless. Not every rank and file worker makes it into the management ranks, before retirement.
It must be false that most of the PS retirees in OC got the fullest pensions available at the age of 50. Since I worked for a municipality for 40 years, and don’t know any rank and file PS worker that got the full percentage offered by the age of 50, there cannot be 500 of them in the OC pension ranks.
I certainly do believe everything that I post, Beeze. That’s not to say that I can’t be wrong, now and then.
August 11, 2012 at 10:10 pm
I checked the database. In 2009 there were 550 Orange County retirees collecting pensions of $100,000 or more. Of the 550, 174 were from the Sheriff’s Department.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-256977–.html?data=1&appSession=764207831465456&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=1&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=#article-data
174 is still a large number from a mid-sized department.
And that only
August 11, 2012 at 10:16 pm
(continued)…..and that only includes the cops – not the fireguys and other public safety.
And there’s no doubt that the number has increased significantly in 3 years since 2009. Heck, from 2009 to 2011 the CalPERS $100,000 plus pension club increased by 99%! So it’s very possible that the number of OC Sheriff employees in the $100,000 club has gone from 174 to 340 or so. The baby boomers are retiring in droves.
So you are discounting the problem, seesaw. These numbers are unsustainable and will eventually break the system. That’s when you pension takes a big haircut. 😉
August 12, 2012 at 12:00 am
I checked the database. In 2009 there were 550 Orange County retirees collecting pensions of $100,000 or more. Of the 550, 174 were from the Sheriff’s Department.
The number we should be lookng at is how many Sheriffs and FF’s have retired in the last 24-36 months??? And how many of THOSE are at $100K or above, I would be 90%-100%
August 12, 2012 at 2:00 am
Seesaw you are living in a state of denial. Use your fingers and type up a few coherent phrases in a search engine and you’ll see for yourself the extent of the 100K issue in OC and elsewhere.
August 12, 2012 at 7:57 am
How many were rank and file, age 50 at the time of retirement? Bet you can’t find one.
August 12, 2012 at 8:31 am
The data base doesn’t give the retirees title or age at the time of retirement–so what information do you use to claim that all the 100Kk+ retirees were rank and file and age 50 at the time of retirement?
August 12, 2012 at 8:38 am
How many were rank and file, age 50 at the time of retirement? Bet you can’t find one.
They can ALL retire at age 50, all of them. And any GED cop at Sergeant or above will be over $100K
Seesaw you are living in a state of denial.
Seesaw has cognitive dissonance.
The Sergeant might be a ham-n’-egger, Beeze, but he/she is management, nevertheless.
It is a supervisory position, yet they pay them overtime, yet OT is not supposed to be paid to managers. More public employee scams.
August 12, 2012 at 8:40 am
Why on earth does anyone waste their time on what seesaw thinks?
August 12, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Did you read this strange story? A big exec from Deutsche Bank is about to sue LAPD for $100M dollars for beating the ka-puck out of him. Now get this …… LAPD contacted him since he matched the description of someone trying to burglarize cars. The cops thought that he was under the influence but the investigation determined that he wasn’t. The cops found a bunch of money in his car (no indication of what happened to the money). The exec complained that he was tired so the cops drove him to a motel to get some sleep. He tried to leave the motel and the cops beat the snot out of him.
I guess if the cops contact somebody who says he’s hungry that they would drive him to Denny’s to get a bit to eat too, eh??? 😀
This story is so full of hole you could drive a Mack truck through it.
The cops are lying again and it’s going to cost the taxpayers BIGTIME!!!
There will be a silent settlement and the cops will keep their jobs. Same ‘ol same ‘ol.
Watch and learn.
http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/12/deutsche-bank-honcho-brian-mulligan-suing-lapd-100-million/
August 12, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Do you folks remember when Julian Alexander, a black resident of Anaheim, was wrongfully shot and killed by an Anaheim cop while standing on his front porch in 2008? He heard noise outside his home and went out to investigate. The cops were chasing some people on the street. Alexander has NOTHING to do with them. He just stepped out on his porch becasue he heard commotion. The Alexander family sued for millions. The story disappeared. NO follow-up reports. I heard that there was SECRET CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT. Now how could there be a SECRET CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT when we are talking TAXPAYER DOLLARS GETTING PAID OUT? The cops didn’t pay a damned nickle of that. The taxpayer citizens paid it? If they can hide that we no longer live in a free society. If they can reach into the public treasure and spend our money and then tell us that we have no right to know about it….we live under fascist rule!!! Let’s face the truth here!
August 12, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Why on earth does anyone waste their time on what seesaw thinks?
seesaw, Teddy and Teddy’s gimmick accounts are the comic relief here 🙂
Hey Beelz, the funniest thing has happened over at CWD-ever since Teddy went on Vacation to the asylum Queeg and Uhaul have mysteriously been absent too!
What are the odds of that 😉
August 12, 2012 at 8:24 pm
“What are the odds of that”
About the same as seesaw calling for the elimination of DB pension retirements @ age 55.
Although there could be a big trough feeder convention somewhere and all 3 of them went there. Maybe Teddy’s a featured keynote speaker. If I were his speechwriter I would entitle his presentation “How to get more for less”.
August 12, 2012 at 8:48 pm
About the same as seesaw calling for the elimination of DB pension retirements @ age 55.
seesaw harms her own arguments tremendously by not calling out the low retirement age abuse, as well as the 2% and above multiplier abuse.
Hey Beelz, did you see the latest in OC?? Hermosa Beach “Meter Maids” are comping $100K !!!!! Not quite as good as the $200K muni lifeguards get, but for a NO SKILL job it ain’t bad 😉
They have to do this because they compete with the private sector for the “best and brightest”……and must offer this so they remain “competitive”.
Read for yourself;
http://briancalle.ocregister.com/2012/08/10/hermosa-beach-meter-maids-making-nearly-100k/
August 12, 2012 at 10:16 pm
“seesaw harms her own arguments tremendously by not calling out the low retirement age abuse, as well as the 2% and above multiplier abuse”
There is no possible meeting of the minds with a person like Seesaw, rex. Totally unreasonable. Now you and me, we ARE reasonable. We are not saying “No more retirement plans for public employees”. Now that would be unreasonable. No. We are simply saying that the predominant retirement plans available in the private sector (eg. 401-k equivalents) should be the only plans available in the public sector. The employment benefits should not advantage or disadvantage either sector. So make them the same. Seesaw vehemently opposes such a rational and fair argument, illustrating her unreasonableness. She wants the public sector to
provide hyper-generous benefits as compared to the private sector that actually finances the public sector benefits. TOTALLY IRRATIONAL AND UNREASONABLE conclusions that defy common sense.
“They have to do this because they compete with the private sector for the “best and brightest”……and must offer this so they remain “competitive”.
What nutty nutty logic that is. Who makes this crap up anyway?. The average meter maid would have a hard time landing a gig at ‘In and Out Burger’ as a fry girl let alone a job that pays $100k comp.
Why would people believe this crap? When people read it they should laugh out loud. It’s not even worth a second thought. It’s just the same as someone telling you a joke. All it deserves is a laugh.
August 12, 2012 at 11:15 pm
They also perform other duties as necessary, such as that of animal control officers and bus drivers. There is always more to any story than the headline.
August 13, 2012 at 12:28 am
They also perform other duties as necessary, such as that of animal control officers and bus drivers. There is always more to any story than the headline.
seesaw, what in the hell is wrong with you????….that you try to justify this bulls**t???????? They are not animal control officers-they are meter maids. They may TRANSPORT an animal EVERY NOW AND THEN, but that is not their job. They are not “bus drivers”, they may drive a bus every now and then, and when they say bus they don’t mean a transit bus either, they mean a “shuttle” bus. And even if they did do BOTH of those things 50% of the time-SO WHAT! This is ALL UNSKILLED LABOR. What’s next, if they take a broom out and sweep the street are you going to say THAT justifies a $100K job too?????…or if they replace the toilet paper and paper towels in the public restroom, is that $150K job, because of the germ danger???? Or if they have to replace a stop sign that someone ran over, is that worth more than a brain surgeon????
Here is your (all public sector employees) problem seesaw, you are doing jobs in the public sector for $100K that is done in the real world for $10K, but you want OTHER PEOPLE to PAY for it, all of it. Same with the pensions, you want $2-$10 million pensions but want OTHERS to PAY for it. Do you know if a GED cop or FF put vitrually ALL of their take home pay into a 401K for 30 years they STILL would not have enough money to fund a 3%@50 pension, since it is based on the final years salary (they’re making $100K today, but back in 1982 they wer eonly making $27K). ALL THEIR TAKE HOME PAY would not cover those pensions. You want OTHERS to fund your lavish, gold plated,royalty type, top 1% life styles and pensions, and then idiots like you seesaw come here and try to justify it by saying ridiculous things like “They also perform other duties as necessary, such as that of animal control officers and bus drivers. There is always more to any story than the headline.”. , yeah, will SO WHAT, anyoen could do those jobs, including my 5 y/o kindergarten next foor neighbor.
It make people angry seesaw. I guess you just will never get it, like Beelz said, you have positions that are so extreme and unreasonable that you just don’t get it. What you should be saying is “yes, this is an abuse, and we need to fix it so everyone does not lose out because of a few who are greedy”, but you don’t, you come here and try to justify this nonsense, and regular people who have regular jobs see this and shake their heads at your insane unsupportable by any stretch comments, like Captain and Kidding Me and Beelz have said.
August 13, 2012 at 12:37 am
Beelz, lets do this, me you Seesaw Captain Donk Teddy, and Teddy’s two sock puppets Queeg and U haul, hook up for lunch this week in OC. I want Seesaw with a straight face to say these unreasonable, over the top, ridiculous comments about meter maids being worth $100K to me personally, face to face. I need to know if she can do it with a straight face-I don’t think she can.
What day is good for everyone?? I am open11-3 on Tue, Wed and Thur…………..Seesaw if you can make your comments to me with a straight face I’m paying for your lunch, just don’t stick me with a steak and lobster lunch (like a one time date did to me many years ago when I was in college and eating ramen noodles 7 days a week.).. 😉
August 13, 2012 at 1:01 am
I don’t see any “meter maids” in the article making $100K, Rex. The paper likes to add up all the line items that an entity must pay out for the purpose of hiring each employee, as salary–which you and I know is not. The two supervisor made in the $90,000’s each and it doesn’t say whether that was the salary scale or overtime–similar to what the OCR did when they were hyping the public up about Life Guards. They are called Community Service officers, not meter maids and they have a variety of duties which include animal control and bus driving–both would be jobs in themselves, anywhere else. I am not following them around on their daily rounds, and am in no position to judge. The salaries in the OC area are much higher than in my area–noone makes that much as a Community Service officer, equivalent, in my community. At least those workers in Hermosa Beach still have jobs. Community Service officers or Police Assistants, as they are called where I am, have all been laid off. I suppose that tickles you pink, Rex, to see more people lose their liveliehoods.
August 13, 2012 at 1:22 am
I don’t know what you are talking about Rex. I don’t lead any kind of gold-plated, 1%, lifesytle.
August 13, 2012 at 5:09 am
I suppose that tickles you pink, Rex, to see more people lose their livelihoods.
It tickles me pink to see $100K trough feeders losing their minimum wage skill jobs, knowing their scam and fraud has been put to an end like every other common criminal. I only wish we could put them in prison in addition to losing their fraud trough feeder job.
Beelz, Captain, Kidding Me, HELP!!!!! Seesaw needs someone to kick some common sense into her thick head, b/c it is lacking bigtime!
BTW seesaw, they are not “animal control” officers, “police assistants” or “bus drivers” (all those minimum wage jobs too), they are “meter maids”, they input a license plate number into a small hand held device, input a code section violation, print out a ticket and put said ticket on the windshield of said vehicle…I wonder if they need a Stanford MBA for that?? What do ya think seesaw?? Harvard Law School needed for that???
August 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm
I don’t support anybody losing their job but I do support fair wages and transparent negotiations. I also support public sector wages and benefits to be comparable to private actor not above and beyond. I am sick and tired of the endless son stories on this board and others of public sector parasites complaining about pension and/or health benefit cuts. These are risks that the private sector lives with too, so foolish me does not quite get why public sector employees feel entitled to more protection of pay and benefits. I am all for raising public sector pay to bring it in line with private sector pay AS LONG AS other things become comparable too – defined contribution, no more garbage of 3% at 50 formulas, obscene sick day payouts, airtime, overtime spiking, etc. As stated elsewhere on this board what really counts when calculating the taxpayer cost of a public sector job is lifetime pay + benefits, not just during the working years. For somebody that retires in their late 40’s or early 50’s taxpayers still have to carry the burden for another 30+ years and it is this portion that really strains budgets.
August 21, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Kidding me— If you didn’t like the compensation you contracted for then you shouldn’t have!
LOL this is just too easy. Oh— And if you are STILL contracting for it– WHY?
September 17, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I agree with the few who have cited Health Care as the real problem here. If you look up the cost to ration for the two local hospitals in Vallejo, Kaiser and Sutter, their profits are enormously high and in the 60% range. These profits are equally as high in all other cities of America. That means that a treatment that actually costs the hospital 30 something cents is being charged to the policy holder as a dollar and these hospitals pocket these profits. Don’t even take my word for it – look up Hospitals Cost to Ration. Hospitals are the real culprits in this scenario.
And, the guy who works for years has his pension and medical care reduced or eliminated because the city, state, etc. can’t afford to put up these bonds any more because of the huge profits included in health care.
Go after the real bullies in this scenario and stop letting the hospitals across America break the bank.
I also agree that if you sign a legal contract to provide a pension and medical to a retiree, that this is a binding contract. If contracts are not binding our whole system goes into the toilet
All you smart bankruptcy lawyers know the cost to ration profits for hospitals, why are you not going after them?