Sign up for Express
Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express!


PleasantonWeekly.com Town Square Google
Login | Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Click for Pleasanton, California Forecast

TownSquare Forum
(Postings listed from most recent to oldest)
View in an RSS Reader
Choose category to Display:
  ALL CATEGORIES   AROUND TOWN   BOOKS & MOVIES   COMMENTS ON STORIES
  CRIMES & INCIDENTS   RESTAURANTS   SCHOOLS & KIDS   SPORTS
  STATE, NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL   EDITOR'S BLOG   PUBLISHER'S BLOG

POST A NEW TOPIC GO TO MESSAGE BOARD VIEW RETURN TO HOME PAGE  
Share
Pension tapeworm gnaws at Budgets
State, National, International, posted by Concerned, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm

I saw this great editorial from yesterday's Orange County Register:

Unfunded cost of public employee retirements threatens state, local

governments.

A Register investigation reported Sunday that lucrative public

employee pension benefits approved during the past decade have been "a

toxin spreading through the budget books of cities and counties across

California." These escalating costs ultimately threaten many local

governments' solvency.

Though many states experience similar fiscal threats, "California is

the only one that allows nearly all public safety workers to retire at

age 50 with 90 percent of their salaries," Register reporters Tony

Saavedra and Brian Joseph reported.

The Register story, "Pension System Run Amuck, Dec. 20," painted a

comprehensively gloomy picture of billions in unfunded liabilities

amassed in city and county pension systems throughout California. The

story blamed good intentions, aggressive public employee groups'

lobbying and the "bad luck" of substantial losses in investments

intended to cover pension costs.

We can add one more, perhaps the most responsible factor for this

accelerating fiscal train wreck: irresponsible public officials asleep

at the switch.

"That was the worst mistake we have ever made," reflected Dwight

Stenbakken, deputy executive director of the League of California

Cities, which Register reporters said "stood silent" as the

Legislature increased pension formulas for all state employees and

public safety workers. One critic told the Register: "The attitude

was, 'Hey, we have a ton of money, let's give it away.' There weren't

a lot of deep thinkers there."

Former Buena Park Councilman Steve Berry recalled "no quantifying, no

study, just hearsay that was being handed out" when his city, like

others, was persuaded to hike pensions for fear of losing police

officers to other jurisdictions. But such arguments have nothing to do

with difficulty recruiting qualified police officers, Santa Ana

College criminal justice department head George Wright told the

Register.

In the decade since the Legislature increased pension benefits, the

California Public Employees' Retirement System has more than doubled

payouts, to $10.8 billion a year, while turning a $32-billion surplus

into a $35-billion unfunded liability when calculating future payouts.

We have warned of the looming public pension catastrophe, perhaps the

most serious fiscal issue facing government today. Former Register

columnist and editorial writer Steven Greenhut lays out a persuasive

case for curbing the growing threat in his new book, "Plunder, How

Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries Controlling Our Lives

and Bankrupting the Nation."

Many cities finally are considering lowering pension benefits for new

hires, and Orange County government is appealing a judge's ruling that

barred it from rolling back the lucrative formula for deputy sheriffs'

pensions. Meanwhile, to reduce costs, the county created a two-tier

pension formula for non-public safety employees. These moves are

better late than never, but it's unclear whether they will be

sufficient to avoid fiscal calamity, as ongoing pension costs eat

ever-growing percentages of local governments' general fund budgets


Add a comment | Add a new topic
If you were a member and logged in you could track this topic

Comments

Posted by Caesar, a resident of the Vineyard Hills neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 6:23 pm

The new fat cats: Public Employees...Damn it!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Dec 22, 2009 at 7:52 pm

The newest fat things: tapeworms!


Posted by Jack, a resident of another community, on Dec 23, 2009 at 6:49 am

If you find this topic interesting, visit Web Link


Posted by In The Know, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2009 at 8:20 am

I am very surpised at the number of sheeple there are out there that believe everything they read. I am also very disappointed in the quality of todays journalists, putting speculation and conjecture in place of actual fact finding and factual reporting. Cities, Counties, and the state who contribute to the PERS pension system on behalf of their employees prefund employees retirements. When an employee reaches retirement age their pension has been fully funded leaving no unfunded liability. Counties who do not belong to the PERS pension system like Contra Costa County have acted irresponsible and have not funded retirements during their employees tenure causing a fiscal nightmare when it came time to fund their unfunded liablilities. Unfortunately, fiasco's like Contra Costa Counties are misconstrued and negatively reflected by the press on agencies who have acted responsibly creating an impression that all government entities have acted in bad faith in regards to their financial management of retirements. This is bad, bad, bad and does a disservice to the community as a whole and shows that a little information can be harmful, especially when not fully understood and reported inaccurately or incompletely.

Dissappointed

and In The know...


Posted by Concerned, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2009 at 9:41 am

In The Know, you are absolutely wrong with the statement "When an employee reaches retirement age their pension has been full funded leaving no unfunded liability." Did you misread the facts or did you make this up (you must be somebody who receives the public pension)? If you read anything from CalPERS, you will see in what dire straits we are and how large our unfunded liability is. CalPERS knows that cities cannot afford to pay their actual liability now because of the financial problems out there and so they are allowing cities to be underfunded and make up for it later. Nothing like kicking the can down the road. The CalPERS investment model assumes that they will make 7.75% annually. If it goes below that, the contributions made into the system are not sufficient and have to be made up with more contributions from the taxpayers. The defined-benefit system puts ALL the risk on the taxpayer. If the investments only make 5%, 0%, or loose money, the system is underfunded. The taxpayers will have to make up for the difference. Does not matter if somebody has retired or not. While the payments from the city for a particular employee stop when the person retires, the loses to their account (or insufficient returns) is paid for by the city as part of the contributions in their current employees.

The City Council of Pleasanton previously decided to give city employees a much higher retirement payout and we, the taxpayers, will be paying for this forever, or until our city is forced into bankruptcy.


Posted by Caesar, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Concerned,

Thank you for correcting "In The Know"

This person is misinformed.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2009 at 12:02 am
Stacey is a member (registered user) of Pleasanton Weekly

It is even more basic than that. In The Know wrote something that indicates an assumption that there's a one to one relationship between that which is contributed during employment and that which is paid out in retirement. That is not the case. The statement also ignores retiree health benefits which are grossly underfunded all across the State. Driving that is an accounting rule change which took place sometime mid-decade. Since taxpayers are on the hook for those costs, governmental organizations have to now start devoting dollars to fund those retiree health benefits during employees' working time. See Web Link


Posted by dixie, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Dec 24, 2009 at 8:53 am

And now we have a $195,000 city attorney hired by council. One more fat cat to feast like the city manager and his fat cat department heads. I understand a decent retirement for police, fire and some park and sewer workers (HAZ MAT exposure possibilities) But a guy/gal that sits behind a desk should have a much different retirement. They are at age 50@2.7 or 2.755 of their salary. And their salaries are much higher than workers "on the street". Plus whatever other perks they get being what they call "Key" employees. Paper shufflers....all


Add a Comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration! Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff
 
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *
Select your Neighborhood or School Community: *
Comment: *
This will be replaced by the player.
Visit TheScottishGames.com for more information
 

Pleasanton Weekly ©2010 Embarcadero Media.
All rights reserved.