Pensions like it's 1999: Good Start
 

Pensions like it's 1999: Good Start

If there was one moment that foreshadowed California's long, sad descent from multibillion-dollar surpluses to deficits as far as the eye can see, it was that day in 1999 when the Senate approved legislation to increase pensions for state workers and opened the door for even bigger retirement checks for local employees.

The discussion on the floor of the Senate took less than one minute, and it was tragically myopic, focusing not on how the bill would affect employees generally or on what it would cost the taxpayers but on the goodies the measure would grant to the Legislature's own security force.

The few lawmakers who cared were told that the bill, SB 400, would essentially be free. The bigger benefits, the experts said, would be paid for by a surplus in the retirement fund. With that assurance, the bill passed on a vote of 39-0 and was sent to Gov. Gray Davis, who promptly signed it.

Now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is asking the Legislature to return pension formulas for newly hired state workers to where they were before that bill was enacted. The governor's proposal, because it cannot apply to current workers, won't help balance next year's budget. But it is still a good idea.

SB 400 was a mistake.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1990754.html
______

As California goes through the financial mess, just think what's been created with pensions - the vote on SB 400 in 1999 basically increased pension payments, based on an excess of funds in the pension reserve - but market crashes wiped out that excess, plus. Now, how stupid are the reps for thinking that this was a free deal, so it passed 39-0?

Also, the private sector has virtually eliminated guaranteed pensions but CA governent and probably Federal Government continue to offer guaranteed pensions - 100%. What's up with that? In addition, State workers are probably well taken care of on the health insurance side at retirement. Can we afford this?

We are so screwed at so many levels in America.

Assolutely agree.

Colorado is in the same boat. You can "buy years" (that you haven't earned for retirement) for pennies on the dollar...and the guys at the helm haven't figured it out yet, or ignore it. The brain trust recently raised the buy in for enhanced pension benefits...it is still one of the best investments on the planet. Colorado is getting ready to lay off 10% of the work force, but this "entitlement" is still in place.

The facts are that state employees earn as much (or more) as their counterparts in private industry, and their benefits are far and above those in the private sector. The bottom line? Private sector is subject to salary/benefit cuts. State empoyees haven't been subjected to such measures...until now. Hang on for the screaming.

Been on the government dole and the private side. I'll take the dole every time.

Oh...California state government employees have been getting wage cuts...in the form of furlough days. Getting their third day per month off as of Awnold's proclamation the other day. The legislative demos are still protecting the state union employees asses though...refusing to go to the two-tiered pension system (as CdC notes) and refusing direct salary cuts. Just pure assinine.

But, what to do about this? It seems to me that the state and the feds should have a worker compensation plan that mirrors the statewide private sector - changing that plan periodically as the private sector changes. They could go with a 401K and match - matching only if the state budeget is balanced.

Right now the smart move individually is the work for the state - for life.

Totally agree...and many now do get only a 401(k)-type plan (public-employee plans are regulated a little differently, but essentially the same stuff).

My daughter's one of Awnold's District Directors...his staff gets hit even when the legislative and bureaucratic folks don't. She's not happy, but she certainly understands why it needs to be done and doesn't mind being part of the staff that sets the example.

Thinking about it - seems like government employees are a protected group - one click worse then a union in that we the people - the actual employers don't negotiate directly with the union - I suppose the governor and state assembly/senate does that - so, no one is minding the store.

There are a lot of good people working for the state/feds, but they are primarily there to earn a paycheck and specificly for the retirement package as well. The retirement package is practically criminal when private sector folks have been dealt out of guaranteed pensions for the past 30 years. Reason - cost reduction.

I just wish that there was a way to address this since our reps will not.

So let's see what happened to the workforce 30 years ago? Oh yeah Reagan started his war on the middle class and started going after unions and causing wages to stagnate, till we got to the point that the only ones that deserve that golden parachute was Bankers, and Wall street types, and look what they managed to do to all the rest of those poor saps 401k only to line there greedy pockets.
Do we know how much of the California budget we are talking about? Is it even worth the argument or is it a real problem?

It's even worse, CdC...most of the government employees are union, and you're right...they end up negotiating with whomever holds the power...which in most instances are union benefactors who need their support to get bills passed.

It's pure unadulturated bullsh!t.

I love dealing with labor boards who regulate union elections for private employers, and all of the board investigators, attorneys and administrative law judges are members of unions. Sure glad they're not biased. :JEKYLHYDE

Honestly, I have to wonder whether you actually believe what you write sometimes.

He doesn't need to believe, he's just passing on the liberal view.

Do you believe wrestling and reality shows are real too? Is Dreamland a gated community for liberals only?

You CANNOT be serious!!!

Where have I heard that before?

Keep in mind - Cobra (space) Bill works for the government......

:LOL: :LOL:

Ray,

Keep in mind - Cobra (space) Bill works for the government......

Isn't that kind of a paradox.

Ron :LOL:

True......

And just when did everyone put on their rose colored glasses and stopped paying attention to what corporations and bankers have done to this country? You know all you guys ever talk about is liberal this and liberal that, what about the people that are truly responsible for this mess, and I don't leave politicians out of this equation, both parties, you want to hang Barny Franks Great let's start there, but I want to line up every swinging dick involved! the corporate takeover of this country started just before Reagan was appointed, Reagan was there puppet, all the hate radio talkers diverted attention away from what the corporations were up too, and by slamming liberals.
This take over by the corporate elite was very thorough, to even mention a liberal media is a joke, look who owns those corporations, and how few real media outlets there really are, if you wish to stay blinded to the facts that are in front of you, all I can do is pity your pathetic rants to further the corporate agenda, all I ask is who bought you off or do you whore your selves for free?

No one answered my question, how much of the total California budget are we talking about?

Rose colored glasses is a market totally cornered by liberals. There are no rose colored glasses left for conservatives. Liberals and conservatives are NOT political parties. There are liberal Republicans, too many of them, and a conservative Democrat is a possibility, at least in theory.
40 years ago, bankers and corporate leaders were the MOST conservative people in the land. The old joke was, "To get a loan, you had to prove you did not need the money!"
POLITICIANS, not business people, decided that they could completely CONTROL the vote of the poor. But they had to get the poor to vote!

SO,

The CRA was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods.[4] Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of National People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act.[39]
The CRA followed similar laws passed to reduce discrimination in the credit and housing markets including the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA). The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires that financial institutions publicly disclose mortgage lending and application data. In contrast with those acts, the CRA seeks to ensure the provision of credit to all parts of a community, regardless of the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood.[40][41] .

How completely STUPID is that last line?



In order to have any/all of these vote purchasing acts to work, numerous banking regulations had to be repealed since these acts perforce violated banking regulations.
The pols intended to solidify their consistent re-elections. But the "law of unintended consequences" gave business almost unlimited power. A it gave them sham financial instruments 'invented' by STUPID, SHORT sighted pols. Capable business people saw there were untold MILLIONS available with no risk, OR REGULATION, at all.
Did they pass on this opportunity FORCED upon them by corrupt politicians? Duh! NO.

If a bank leaves it doors and vault open and unguarded all night, and not a single individual with any criminal record walks by all night. Will there be any money left in the bank in the AM? Duh! NO!

But liberals possess a special gene that allows them to ignore the "Inconvenient Truth" of history.

My guess is that everyone is talking about the part of the California budget that they cannot fund!

No one answered my question, how much of the total California budget are we talking about?

$3.3 billion of the $95 billion budget, of which there is a $25-26 billion deficit. That only includes the payment due CalPers, and does not include matching funds for for 401(k)-style retirement plans already in place for public employees.

It also does not include CalSTRS...the teachers pension, which is an additional $1.3 billion.

There are over 5,000 retired public employees receiving over $100,000 a year in retirement benefits, including a former city official of the City of Vernon (ever been to Vernon, cobra[space]bill?) who is under indictment for embezzling that city. His name is Bill Malkenhorst.

He gets $499,000 a year from us.

Now folks under CalPERS made a sh!tload of money over the past couple of decades due to the stock market going up and up, and yet contribution amounts kept getting increased (per employee) in bills pushed by the Democrats for their union buddies. The damn thing ended up overfunded...you know what overfunded is, don't you cobra[space]bill?

And yet, with the income for California dropping...the Democrats want to increase the contribution to CalPERS by $300 million this year. Even with market downturns, etc., CalPERS is maintaining benefit levels mucho fino...cuz...oh yeah...it's overfunded!

Really...be quiet.

No...really.

Well you have no problem with how much executives make, why are you so down on the working class in America, are you really an American Jam(no space)O, or are you just another corporate shill, if you take away their retirements, bargained in good faith with the state, then you will lose all of your employees, no one's going to stay in those jobs, and good luck getting qualified people after you screw the ones you got, and turn the state into a Wall Mart.
There are always those that will abuse the system, as sited in your post, and by the way while I have been to most cities and towns in California, as a trucker, I have not ever been to Vernon, but the point is that's what we have laws for and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if we would put as much effort into going after white collar crime as we do trying to keep a worker from making a living wage, these abuses would not be so prevalent.

There are good people and bad people, honest people and cheats at every level of every industry. The percentages of dishonest poor and dishonest rich are similar.
ALL of that has nothing to do with the politics of the situation.
If you follow the "Robin Hood" model, the poor will NOT become rich. There will just be many, many MORE poor!
The singular hope the poor have of improving their lot, IS the rich!

Do the rich gorge themselves? Yes, of course they do! But in the process, THEY CREATE jobs and opportunities for others. Governments are leeches on society, they USE. They create nothing [waste excepted].
The rich, while indulging themselves, DO create for all.
That should be obvious, even to a liberal. "Obvious to a liberal," is that a contradictory statement?