Public Union Pension Plan Changes

[Wiseacre]

Again, if a city can't meet its obligations, it has two options. The first is to cut the obligations and the second is to get more to pay them. None of you are even acknowledging the second option.

And you and your lefty friends won't acknowledge the first option. For God's sake man, do you not realize that you can't raise taxes anywhere near enough to pay for those pensions? From $73 million 10 years ago to $245 million last year in San Diego, what'll it be 10 years from now if they didn't restructure? People and businesses are already leaving CA in droves, and you want to raise taxes more than they already are? Jesus, it's incomprehensible how detached you are from reality.

See above.

I didn't say anything about raising taxes.

Saw it, after I wrote my post. So tell me, how could those cities raise that much extra revenue without a tax increase of biblical proportions?

 

[jgarden]

There was another important vote last night, this time in San Diego. I think this is the direction that all public unions oughta be going in.


" The passage of San Diego’s Proposition B, which limits pension payments for city employees and moves new hires into a “defined contribution” 401(k)-style pension plan. Prop B, which was strongly opposed by public employees unions, nevertheless passed by an almost two-to-one margin in a city with a history of pension funding problems. For the eighth-largest city in the country, not to mention one located in union-heavy California, to enact such an ambitious change will give heart to pension reformers around the country. As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

The other big news from last night « The Enterprise Blog

With all due respect, the members of these public unions entered into these agreements in good faith. Public sector unions make a convenient target - but they weren't the ones responsible for creating the financial crash of 2008!

A pension is nothing more than deferred income that municipal, state and federal governments promise to pay at some later date. It is not the workers fault that past governments failed to take those steps necessary to fund the financial commitments they made.

If governments can suddenly change the rules in mid-stream and make public workers the "scapegoats" for political mismanagement and Wall Street greed, then their workers will now demand that all deferred income be now paid upfront - given that any legal agreements with these governments will now be considered worthless.

If the public sector workers are destined to take a financial hit, are the public financed pensions of those politicians, past and present, who helped create this problem also be subject to the same cuts?

 

[DontBeStupid]

And you and your lefty friends won't acknowledge the first option. For God's sake man, do you not realize that you can't raise taxes anywhere near enough to pay for those pensions? From $73 million 10 years ago to $245 million last year in San Diego, what'll it be 10 years from now if they didn't restructure? People and businesses are already leaving CA in droves, and you want to raise taxes more than they already are? Jesus, it's incomprehensible how detached you are from reality.

See above.

I didn't say anything about raising taxes.

Saw it, after I wrote my post. So tell me, how could those cities raise that much extra revenue without a tax increase of biblical proportions?

Simple.

Have policies that boost pay for the private sector. As you all are fond of saying, the people who make more money pay more in taxes. Helping raise private sector pay and compensation up to the level of the public sector would result in more tax revenue without a raise in tax rates. It would also boost the disposable income of the private sector workers which would result in more consumer spending which is good for business.

Like I said at the beginning, anyone advocating pulling down the public sector as a way to address this problem is a moron.

 

[The T]

See above.

I didn't say anything about raising taxes.

Saw it, after I wrote my post. So tell me, how could those cities raise that much extra revenue without a tax increase of biblical proportions?

Simple.

Have policies that boost pay for the private sector. As you all are fond of saying, the people who make more money pay more in taxes. Helping raise private sector pay and compensation up to the level of the public sector would result in more tax revenue without a raise in tax rates. It would also boost the disposable income of the private sector workers which would result in more consumer spending which is good for business.

Like I said at the beginning, anyone advocating pulling down the public sector as a way to address this problem is a moron.

but the Public says no more...they can't afford it and aren't going to pay it...

Gonna force the issue?

I'd say you are in for one HELL of a fight, Stupid.

 

[Wiseacre]

There was another important vote last night, this time in San Diego. I think this is the direction that all public unions oughta be going in.


" The passage of San Diego’s Proposition B, which limits pension payments for city employees and moves new hires into a “defined contribution” 401(k)-style pension plan. Prop B, which was strongly opposed by public employees unions, nevertheless passed by an almost two-to-one margin in a city with a history of pension funding problems. For the eighth-largest city in the country, not to mention one located in union-heavy California, to enact such an ambitious change will give heart to pension reformers around the country. As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

The other big news from last night « The Enterprise Blog

With all due respect, the members of these public unions entered into these agreements in good faith - it wasn't them who created the financial crash of 2008!


A pension is nothing more than deferred income that the government promises to pay at a later date.

If the government can suddenly change the rules in mid-stream and make public workers the "scapegoats" for political mismanagement, then their workers will now demand that all deferred income be paid upfront - given that any legal agreement with the government is now worthless.

Don't think the 2008 crash has anything to do with how these cities and others can meet their obligations and still provide necessary services to their citizens. Makes no difference whose fault it is, something had to be done and this was the only real option left to them. Or perhaps the least harmful to the pensioners. We're talking about California democrats here, if there was a better way I think they woulda found it.

Scapegoats huh? Please, it's hard to feel bad for people who have a wide disparity of income and benefits with those in the private sector. "Deferred income paid up front"; good luck with that. These people got compensation packages that were far in excess, lifeguards retiring on 6-figure pensions? Give me a break.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Thats what I dont understand. In the long run it not only hurts unions (which I dont understand the obsession there either) and the private (meaning everyone else including you) salaries and or benefits.

So we have the people working for scraps saying "Hey, they are making more money / more benes...Lets Take it!"

Makes no sense

The main reason why these propositions were enacted was not to address pay differences, it was done to address unsustainable future debt obligations that neither city could meet. [Please read post #11.] Don't you get it? Those cities cannot pay the pensions as they are now and still provide the basic services that it's citizens expect.

Why are they going after the unions? Cuz that's where the fucking money is going, andit's going to get a lot worse. [Please read post #11 again.]

Working for scraps. You gotta be kidding me. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Again, if a city can't meet its obligations, it has two options. The first is to cut the obligations and the second is to get more to pay them. None of you are even acknowledging the second option.

I readily acknowledge that option 2 is off the table.... given your twisted logic, at some point we'll be paying 60 - 70% in taxes.

What you liberal simpletons don't get is that taxes are a percentage therefore as the economy grows, 8% of income always leads to more income.

You libs are the most economically challenged things I have ever met... your personal finances must be a fucking mess.

 

[DontBeStupid]

There was another important vote last night, this time in San Diego. I think this is the direction that all public unions oughta be going in.


" The passage of San Diego’s Proposition B, which limits pension payments for city employees and moves new hires into a “defined contribution” 401(k)-style pension plan. Prop B, which was strongly opposed by public employees unions, nevertheless passed by an almost two-to-one margin in a city with a history of pension funding problems. For the eighth-largest city in the country, not to mention one located in union-heavy California, to enact such an ambitious change will give heart to pension reformers around the country. As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

The other big news from last night « The Enterprise Blog

With all due respect, the members of these public unions entered into these agreements in good faith - it wasn't them who created the financial crash of 2008!


A pension is nothing more than deferred income that the government promises to pay at a later date.

If the government can suddenly change the rules in mid-stream and make public workers the "scapegoats" for political mismanagement, then their workers will now demand that all deferred income be paid upfront - given that any legal agreement with the government is now worthless.

Don't think the 2008 crash has anything to do with how these cities and others can meet their obligations and still provide necessary services to their citizens. Makes no difference whose fault it is, something had to be done and this was the only real option left to them. Or perhaps the least harmful to the pensioners. We're talking about California democrats here, if there was a better way I think they woulda found it.

Scapegoats huh? Please, it's hard to feel bad for people who have a wide disparity of income and benefits with those in the private sector. "Deferred income paid up front"; good luck with that. These people got compensation packages that were far in excess, lifeguards retiring on 6-figure pensions? Give me a break.

The unemployment rate in San Diego is 9.5%. Prior to the Recession, it was 5%.

But keep telling yourself the Recession had nothing to do with this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have no problem seeing government employees moved into a defined contribution retirement plan.

it's good enough for the rest of us so it should be good enough for them.

 

[The T]

I have no problem seeing government employees moved into a defined contribution retirement plan.

it's good enough for the rest of us so it should be good enough for them.

And that's the crux of the argument, isn't it? And where was the representation for the people at those negotiations between the Public Sector Unions and the politicians? Where WAS OUR vote in what those unions got at OUR expense as the UNIONS sure voted to accept or not?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think anyone who thinks pulling down union workers as a means of addressing pay differences is a moron.

Thats what I dont understand. In the long run it not only hurts unions (which I dont understand the obsession there either) and the private (meaning everyone else including you) salaries and or benefits.

So we have the people working for scraps saying "Hey, they are making more money / more benes...Lets Take it!"

Makes no sense

The main reason why these propositions were enacted was not to address pay differences, it was done to address unsustainable future debt obligations that neither city could meet. [Please read post #11.] Don't you get it? Those cities cannot pay the pensions as they are now and still provide the basic services that it's citizens expect.

There is always a reason, but the results are the same. These workers will be getting less money and less benes and people instead of wanting the same for themselves, have been convinced that everyone else should get shitty benes too! Class Warfare?

Why are they going after the unions? Cuz that's where the fucking money is going, andit's going to get a lot worse. [Please read post #11 again.]

Working for scraps. You gotta be kidding me. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

The money is going a lot of places, dont even pretend that there is not a polictical motivation for going after unions. I understand, they vote dem a lot. But what you dont understand is by demanding that Unions take less and less do you think that your wages and benes will increase or decrease because of those actions? Take a guess.

 

[Wiseacre]

" dont even pretend that there is not a polictical motivation for going after unions "

The fact that you are trying to assign political motivations to a vote BY THE PEOPLE that was at 66% and 70% approval kind of exposes your own political bias. This wasn't a vote taken in city hall or in the state capitol, this was on the ballot last night, and in California too! Good Lord man, can you not accept that this referendum was necessary for those cities?

 

[DontBeStupid]

" dont even pretend that there is not a polictical motivation for going after unions "

The fact that you are trying to assign political motivations to a vote BY THE PEOPLE that was at 66% and 70% approval kind of exposes your own political bias. This wasn't a vote taken in city hall or in the state capitol, this was on the ballot last night, and in California too! Good Lord man, can you not accept that this referendum was necessary for those cities?

And can you not accept that there were other options?

 

[The T]

" dont even pretend that there is not a polictical motivation for going after unions "

The fact that you are trying to assign political motivations to a vote BY THE PEOPLE that was at 66% and 70% approval kind of exposes your own political bias. This wasn't a vote taken in city hall or in the state capitol, this was on the ballot last night, and in California too! Good Lord man, can you not accept that this referendum was necessary for those cities?

And can you not accept that there were other options?

And they WERE NOT viable, were they Stupid?

 

[DontBeStupid]

" dont even pretend that there is not a polictical motivation for going after unions "

The fact that you are trying to assign political motivations to a vote BY THE PEOPLE that was at 66% and 70% approval kind of exposes your own political bias. This wasn't a vote taken in city hall or in the state capitol, this was on the ballot last night, and in California too! Good Lord man, can you not accept that this referendum was necessary for those cities?

And can you not accept that there were other options?

And they WERE NOT viable, were they Stupid?

Were they talked about? Were any tried?

Nice defeatist attitude.

 

[Wiseacre]

" dont even pretend that there is not a polictical motivation for going after unions "

The fact that you are trying to assign political motivations to a vote BY THE PEOPLE that was at 66% and 70% approval kind of exposes your own political bias. This wasn't a vote taken in city hall or in the state capitol, this was on the ballot last night, and in California too! Good Lord man, can you not accept that this referendum was necessary for those cities?

And can you not accept that there were other options?

I am certain that these 2 cities in a heavily democratic state explored every other option. It's not like this problem is new, it's been growing worse for years.

 

[DontBeStupid]

" dont even pretend that there is not a polictical motivation for going after unions "

The fact that you are trying to assign political motivations to a vote BY THE PEOPLE that was at 66% and 70% approval kind of exposes your own political bias. This wasn't a vote taken in city hall or in the state capitol, this was on the ballot last night, and in California too! Good Lord man, can you not accept that this referendum was necessary for those cities?

And can you not accept that there were other options?

I am certain that these 2 cities in a heavily democratic state explored every other option. It's not like this problem is new, it's been growing worse for years.

And I am certain that the conservatives and GOP leaders in the area supported them.

Right?

 

[The T]

And can you not accept that there were other options?

And they WERE NOT viable, were they Stupid?

Were they talked about? Were any tried?

Nice defeatist attitude.

So just bog everything down further, eh?

EU tactics aside...[That have already FAILED]

*FAIL*

Way to Go.

IDIOT

 

[Wiseacre]

And can you not accept that there were other options?

I am certain that these 2 cities in a heavily democratic state explored every other option. It's not like this problem is new, it's been growing worse for years.

And I am certain that the conservatives and GOP leaders in the area supported them.

Right?

Sure. So what? Dude, 66% and 70% of the voters approved the propositions in both cities. Cannot imagine how you can possibly spin that into a political issue, especially since it's in CALIFORNIA.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I have no problem seeing government employees moved into a defined contribution retirement plan.

it's good enough for the rest of us so it should be good enough for them.

Refer to my post. That is all this is about. Instead of demanding more you demand that everyone get less. Why?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I am certain that these 2 cities in a heavily democratic state explored every other option. It's not like this problem is new, it's been growing worse for years.

And I am certain that the conservatives and GOP leaders in the area supported them.

Right?

Sure. So what? Dude, 66% and 70% of the voters approved the propositions in both cities. Cannot imagine how you can possibly spin that into a political issue, especially since it's in CALIFORNIA.

Seriously, You say that others must have looked at another way and dismiss that the other ways may not have been supported. You cant Say there is only one option, ask for another way, dismiss why that other way never happened, then claim theres one one option again