- This topic has 161 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM #739570March 8, 2012 at 11:01 AM #739572
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]. . . BG wisecracked about them of being able to collect (their pensions) anyway earlier in the thread.[/quote] (clarification added)
nsr, I don’t “wisecrack” about things like this. It’s actually the law.
You can join your “friends,” pri_dk and sdr in their “legislation-writing sessions.”
I’ll be standing by to proofread or assist in any way I can :=}
March 9, 2012 at 6:29 AM #739599no_such_reality
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
nsr, I don’t “wisecrack” about things like this. It’s actually the law.You can join your “friends,” pri_dk and sdr in their “legislation-writing sessions.”
I’ll be standing by to proofread or assist in any way I can :=}
[/quote]Your prior comment.
[quote=bearishgurl]
Lol, CAR … I’m still waiting for all these Piggs who think the public sector is paid too much to go thru the application process themselves and then sign all the releases necessary to open up their private lives and credit reports to the PTB so that they, too, can get “selected” to make the BIG BUCKS and eventually become “vested” to collect an unconscionable pension!
Any takers???
Ah …. I didn’t think so … :=![/quote]You can’t have it both ways. In one post the defense is the unconscionable pensions aren’t available to new hires. In others, it’s come work for the government to get that pension. They are just red herrings. The problem is like social security and the pig in the snake.
In other topics, CAR and others rail against the evil investment bankers and the option ARMs mortgages with the false promises luring buyers in creating the mess. Never mind the similarities to the investment bankers at CalPERs telling the State & Local governments and Unions they can have the bigger payouts at ‘no cost’. Well, looks like the option part is gone and now the big spikes are coming.
Things I do know, in the private sector, if my employees felt half as maligned as you come across, I’d have a 30%+ annual turnover. People like Flu, I wouldn’t be able to keep on staff no matter how much gold I threw at him. I know, I’ve run plenty of death march projects as a consultant.
When those same maligned people don’t move on, the reason typically boils down to one or combination of the following three:
1. They are paid substantially above market or have golden equity handcuffs
2. Their skills are dated and not readily transferable (this isn’t a subset of 1, this is low employability for their skillset which is much more rare than they’re paid more than their skillset is now paying)
3. They’re close to vesting in some retirement plan.The legality or cost of conversion of pensions keeps getting thrown up. I get it may be more expensive, but we will all be better off if it is paid up front and is portable. It removes #3 from the equation.
Laws can change. Bankruptcy happens. Look at Vallejo and Stockton. San Jose. CalPERs strong armed Vallejo. The retirement benefits were largely protected. All the rest of the city services where largely stripped. Is that what the city government workers are fighting to get? Their pension at the cost of the entire city?
As for the thread being yet another prop for SDR to rant against the government, well, why is it so easy to find targets? Every week we turn on the news, the altruistic teachers stands accused of 23 counts of child molestation, the cops investigated over a year. Or the city cops are on video beating a homeless man to death. Or the firefighters have a lawsuit about feeding dog food to the black firefighter in the station. Or they’re is a hubbub because they took their fire engine to the beach and allowed it to be filmed in a porn film with the coup de grace being they can’t be disciplined because the filming was more than 12 months ago per city contract. Or the cops shotdown Marine in his SUV in front of his kids. Or…
Or…
Or…March 9, 2012 at 7:19 AM #739619Anonymous
Guest[quote=no_such_reality]Look at Vallejo and Stockton. San Jose. CalPERs strong armed Vallejo. The retirement benefits were largely protected. All the rest of the city services where largely stripped. Is that what the city government workers are fighting to get? Their pension at the cost of the entire city?[/quote]
All the evidence points to “yes.”
Protect the income of those who are not even working, at the expense of everything else.
In the pages and pages posts here by CAR and and BG, with thousands of words of cut/paste details, there is not a single mention of what happened to these cities.
Pure denial.
“Talk about everything but the actual issue. Just pretend it never happened. Just pretend it is not happening still.
Our union reps wrote the laws in a backroom deal. Now the law protects my income! Schools, services and the citizens be damned…”
March 9, 2012 at 10:59 AM #739630Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=no_such_reality]Look at Vallejo and Stockton. San Jose. CalPERs strong armed Vallejo. The retirement benefits were largely protected. All the rest of the city services where largely stripped. Is that what the city government workers are fighting to get? Their pension at the cost of the entire city?[/quote]
All the evidence points to “yes.”
Protect the income of those who are not even working, at the expense of everything else.
In the pages and pages posts here by CAR and and BG, with thousands of words of cut/paste details, there is not a single mention of what happened to these cities.
Pure denial.
“Talk about everything but the actual issue. Just pretend it never happened. Just pretend it is not happening still.
Our union reps wrote the laws in a backroom deal. Now the law protects my income! Schools, services and the citizens be damned…”[/quote]
pri_dk and nsr:
First of all, I haven’t “cut and pasted” anything here OR written pages and pages about this subject. No offense to any other Pigg, but I don’t need to as I have a near-photographic memory of the “street view.”
Secondly, unions don’t write or make laws. Your elected officials do.
The exorbitant pension obligation shortfalls you are seeing in some CA counties and municipalities (incl the City of SD) is NOT due to old formulas used to calculate the more paltry annuites paid to those former employees who retired (or took deferred retirement) before 2002 and are still alive to collect them. It is due to later supervisor and council votes in each jurisdiction which allowed existing employees (incl the “voters,” lol) to “enhance” their retirement benefits in the following ways: (a) by paying in a larger portion of their biweekly pay into their respective (ret) systems; (b) for those eligible to retire, “bank” their pensions and still stay on the payroll (DROP), and (c) count overtime into the employees’ highest one-year pay or three-years pay for pension calculation purposes (“pension spiking,” now mostly rescinded everywhere).
How did these brilliant ideas come about and why were these votes for “enhanced” systems made?? I’ll tell you why:
By about 2001, in CA jurisdictions which still had open space to build, cities and counties were flush with developer fees and the additional property tax which resulted from subdividing that vacant land. Their retirement systems’ investments had been doing well in the stock market tech run up. At this time, it was not known that health care premiums would double and triple within the next decade as they had been staying the same or going up a few dollars (if anything) in previous years. In any case, the “enhanced pension” promises were later made to their respective union bargaining units by each jurisdiction without a guaranteed healthcare subsidy, to cover themselves in this regard.
In the case of the County of SD, the supervisor vote for the “enhanced pension” occurred in March 2002 and was subsequently offered as a “carrot” by the county to its unions beginning June 2002 (in lieu of their traditional 4-5% annual raises). The union reps, of course, took the offer after it was explained to their members.
btw, those supervisors who voted in the “enhanced” SD County pension formulas? Having no term limits, all five are still at their posts today and have been for the last 18-20 years. Ask yourself why this is so.
We all know what happened next. Developer-fee collection and property-tax collection went thru the roof in CA!! Some jurisdictions doubled and then tripled their planning dept staffs (only to later lay nearly all of them off). Even after the state confiscated their (Teeter) portion of the property taxes and the portion to fund courts and prisons (AB-233 funds), these “developing” municipalities and counties still felt rich!! In addition, MR bonds were paying for roads, libraries and new fire and police stns (which required new hires), but counties still collected the underlying (Prop 13) portion of each *new* parcel! This was a windfall to local jurisdictions!! Some of their retirement associations invested pension-obligations in what later proved to be worthless (MBS and derivative) hedge funds which ended up depleting their reserves they had set aside for projected pension obligations. The fund mgrs who made those risky investments were summarily sh!tcanned but that didn’t bring back the lost $$.
You might surmise that I should be “angry” or “envious” that I didn’t hang around long enough to receive an “enhanced” pension but I’m not. I didn’t have the payroll deductions for it taken from my pay. And if I become very sick or disabled in the future and/or Medicare becomes insolvent before I turn 65, I am guaranteed health coverage for life (at a huge cost to me), but it is there and is NOT underwritten. (I currently have an HDHP which has a $5K annual deductible and an $8K in annual coinsurance provision.) The retirees on the “enhanced” plan don’t have a HC guarantee and don’t have the small HC subsidy that we do.
I’ve personally served multiple stints at that (collective bargaining) table (even overnights) and can tell you that this experience was very enlightening, to say the least. It takes two to tango in there. I accept reality and know that collective bargaining is deeply imbedded in state law. It is what it is and these jobs are what they are. Everybody in there is on the same page in that regard. And that’s where the similarity parts ways.
What does this all boil down to? In a nutshell, there are two causes of CA city/county insolvency . . . well three, if you count Pollyanna-ish supervisors/council members. “Urban sprawl” is the (underlying) culprit…. and the success of “urban sprawl” was fueled primarily by easy money during the “millenium boom.”
In CA, these “enhanced” pensions would have never been voted in by the PTB had it not been for the infusion of massive developer fees and new and future property taxes to collect on endless new parcels that were permitted on previous wasteland.
“Urban sprawl” in CA had (and has) much more “far-reaching ramifications” than its residents are willing to admit. It has devastated many counties in this state. It is, truly, California’s “elephant in the room.”
Name me ONE city or county in this state who is on the verge of BK (on acct of an insolvent pension system) who did NOT succumb to the developer-fee and MR-bond enticement in the last decade or had and has their precious “open space” locked up from further development.
Go on . . . I’ll be waiting right here :=]
March 9, 2012 at 2:52 PM #739643ParticipantIs that a very long way of saying “I went broke because I won the lottery?”
Urban sprawl red herring aside, look at Vallejo’s post BK budget
Police reduce from 155 to 92 officers.
Fire reduce from 9 companies to 5. That’s 122 to 85Their budget is 28.6% pension and health benefits for current and existing retires
40% of salaries and benefits are benefits and works comp.
Next years projection calls for the pension piece to increase from $11.7 to $13.7 million
That’s on a $65.4 million budget To keep it balanced they’re projecting a 40% reduction in health benefits and a 25% cut to retiree health.
Why Rthey thought they could give them away is immaterial
March 9, 2012 at 3:48 PM #739647Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Is that a very long way of saying “I went broke because I won the lottery?”
Urban sprawl red herring aside, look at Vallejo’s post BK budget
Police reduce from 155 to 92 officers.
Fire reduce from 9 companies to 5. That’s 122 to 85Their budget is 28.6% pension and health benefits for current and existing retires
40% of salaries and benefits are benefits and works comp.
Next years projection calls for the pension piece to increase from $11.7 to $13.7 million
That’s on a $65.4 million budget To keep it balanced they’re projecting a 40% reduction in health benefits and a 25% cut to retiree health.
Why Rthey thought they could give them away is immaterial
http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.gov[/quote%5D
Well, after an ultra-quick online perusal, we can start our “study” of the failure of Vallejo with the closed Naval Shipyards as our first “red herring,” the partially-developed “CFD 2002-1” (both comm’l and residential – similar to Liberty Stn in SD).
David Glasgow Farragut founded the Mare Island Shipyard in 1854, and the Navy closed the yard in 1996. During that period, over 500 ships, including nuclear submarines, were built at Mare Island Naval Shipyard.
Wait for the following document to load. Parcel maps are on the last pages.
That’s just ONE massive CFD, created in 2002 on former Federal Govm’t land … Just a start for you to munch on, nsr. Later, I’ll research Vallejo’s council minutes to learn exactly when (not “if”) they “enhanced” their retirement plan and “retiree healthcare benefits,” due to their “newfound riches” from CFD 2002-1 (and other backroom developer deals) lol …..
Keep ’em coming, nsr….I need a city/county who is on the verge of BK who has NOT succumbed to developer “bribes” and initial CFD bond $$ in the last decade.
March 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM #739648ParticipantAgain. The why doesn’t matter. The what is does
They’ve over spent. Now they are left with budgets that are 30% retirements and benefits.
Pensions are like debt.
Your the one making the claim, you need to prove it.
In the end, it doesn’t matter whyWhat is does. 30% of their budget will be pension and health benefits
March 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM #739649Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Again. The why doesn’t matter. The what is does[/quote]
Ahh, but the “why” DOES matter…..the “why” ALWAYS matters!
How are you going to fix the problem if you don’t understand how you got into it in the first place?
Oh, yeah, that’s right. As a City, look in the mirror and pretend your “red herrings” never existed … and those “in charge” never acted in their own self-interests. File for BK. Or better yet …..
Blame the unions.
That sounds more “palatable” for the time being.
LOL….
March 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM #739658Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=no_such_reality]Again. The why doesn’t matter. The what is does[/quote]
Ahh, but the “why” DOES matter…..the “why” ALWAYS matters!
How are you going to fix the problem if you don’t understand how you got into it in the first place?
Oh, yeah, that’s right. As a City, look in the mirror and pretend your “red herrings” never existed … and those “in charge” never acted in their own self-interests. File for BK. Or better yet …..
Blame the unions.
[/quote]If your argument is the city politicians acted liked a bunch drunken Casey Serins and thought the flipper money would never end, I won’t deny that.
I won’t deny they acted in their own interest and self political preservation in giving the farm away to continue stint in power.
It wasn’t sustainable. They spent like it was.
The Union, oh no blaming the unions, bellied up to bar and demand their cut of largess. Yes? Yes they did.
The budget addresses that they did overspend. That they need to be prudent going forward. That they need to create a cushion on funding. Here’s their budget presentation. http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/uploads/1/06142011%20-%20Recommended%20Budget%20FY%202011-2012%20Presentation.pdf
It’s scary with how basic it is… Not basic as in bare bones, basic as in Budgeting 101.
Now back to reality of today.
Vallejo’s budget going forward will have $13.8 Million out of $65 Million in pensions costs, after slashing almost half of the work force. $13.8 million in pension and $34.5.
That’s 40 cents for every dollar of salaries is just pension. My company has a great 401K plan. We’re no were near 40 cents of every dollar of salary for retirement benefits.
Currently retiree healthcare is 5% of the budget. They think they’ll push it down. I wonder. That’s another $3 million today. That’s 10 cents for every dollar of a current employee salary, they need to pay in retiree health care costs. That’s on top of the 10 cents for every employee health care costs.
If this was Casey Serin, he’d be done with bankruptcy working a $65K a year job and still having a minimum credit card payment of $1500 a month.
But you make our point for us. Government has been on auto pilot.
That level of pension debt and retiree health benefit going forward will cripple the city.
To be blunt, the Cities acted just like the over extended construction guy that I bought the short sale house from. Well, the house had to go.
His problem wasn’t he had too much money coming in during the boom times. He spent it poorly.
March 13, 2012 at 11:05 AM #739818jstoesz
ParticipantCalpers lowers assumed rate of return.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577279572284025222.html
March 13, 2012 at 2:35 PM #739873GuestFor some reason I don’t get the full text of the WSJ article linked in jstoesz’s post. Here’s another one on the same story:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/financial-calpers-rate-of-return-idUKL2E8EDBCB20120313
If the assumed rate of return is lowered, state and local government employers that use Calpers to oversee pension and other retirement services would have to pay more into the fund at a time when their budgets are already stressed.
Calpers President Rob Feckner said a 7.5 percent assumed rate would not be unduly burdensome. The higher pension contributions that would be required under a 7.25 percent assumed rate could be too dramatic for local governments, he told Reuters.
“To implement to that point would put some local governments and agencies in jeopardy,” Feckner said.
Straight from the President of CalPERS: Taxpayers and the public will bear the full burden of the pension shortfalls.
California needs drastic pension reform now.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.