Unions trounced in California

[g5000]

unions are more about Democrats but even they will abandon ship...

each state has a political bureaucracy and an administrative bureaucracy....the political being all about jobs and contracts....and the administrative being about pensions and healthcare...

dumb question...but given a choice....which bureaucracy do you think the politicians will abandon first....?

when bankruptcy looms.....even Democrat politicians (like Corzine) will let the union pensions and bennies go first.....who else are the unions going to vote for anyway...?

All their budget planning was based on a mountain of false premises. Now their expectations have not panned out, and they are scrambling for money to meet all their obligations.

Public pensions are going to be a tough fight. When a politician makes a promise to people, those people now have an expectation. Those expectations were the seeds of the government's destruction.

Today's Governors are reaping the folly of their predecessors.

 

[Trajan]

What do unions do when 70% of voters back pension reform?

File a lawsuit.

It seems that Wisconsin is not the only place where voters are not all that happy with public employee unions. This story is pretty big here in CA.

In San Jose, Measure B — a serious pension reform measure that reduces benefits for current workers – passed overwhelmingly, with little opposition from the unions, which are gearing up for a legal fight. They know they can’t win in the democratic arena. The measure was leading with 71 percent of the vote in that Democratic city, which along with Scott Walker’s victory suggests that unions are now going to be backpedaling fast. Councilwoman Rose Herrera, the swing vote on the council, is leading in her race to retain her seat, which is more good news for San Jose pension reformers.
In San Diego, pension-reform councilman Carl DeMaio was leading the race for mayor, followed by Democrat Bob Filner, which is the best-possible news. A DeMaio-Filner general-election race will be great for DeMaio.

Unions trounced in Wisconsin, California | CalWatchDog

I voted for it and I am in a Public sector Union.

San Jose is very much more Lib/Progge than San Diego and we out voted them...

I voted against the ciggy tax and I voted against the term limits gig, which passed, they worded that thing so cleverly they fooled everyone, this was a BS prop.

 

[rhodescholar]

You do realize the first article is about Christie and not Corzine, right? 2011. Christie was governor.

Read the whole article, moron:

"Christie says that right there ended any need to bargain for Corzine , and he gave the workers a 7-percent raise in a zero-percent inflation rate. Christie says he won't be so giving with the taxpayers' money."

The second article also has nothing to do with Corzine's term as governor.

Read the whole article, moron:

"Naturally, Mr. Corzine’s solution was the one the public sector unions wanted: Get the needed revenues by introducing a new tax. The twist was that there was someone in the New Jersey government who understood the problem—who understood that a new sales tax wouldn’t do much to fix New Jersey’s problems, and that the only way to get a handle on them was to get state workers to start contributing more to their health care and pensions. These were the pre-Chris Christie days, so the author of this bold proposal was the Senate president, Stephen Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney is not only interesting because he is a prominent and powerful Democrat. He is also interesting because in addition to his political office, he represents the state’s ironworkers. And what Mr. Sweeney proposed for the public sector unions was something private union members such as his ironworkers already paid for. It was also common sense: He knew that if New Jersey didn’t get a handle on its gold-plated pay and benefits for its government employees, it would squeeze out the private sector that hires people such as ironworkers. If the leader of an ironworkers union could realize that, surely so could a governor who had earlier served as a high-powered executive for Goldman Sachs. But Mr. Corzine was having none of it. Instead, he told the crowd of state workers: “We’re gonna fight for a fair contract.”

The question is, whom was he planning on fighting? Wasn’t he management in these negotiations?

Six months later, Governor Corzine proved this was not simply a slip of the tongue. When workers at Rutgers University were planning to unionize, he turned up at their rally. This was too much even for the liberal Star Ledger, which—in an article entitled “Jon Corzine, Union Rep?”—noted that Mr. Corzine’s appearance at the rally raised the question whether he truly understood that “he represents the ‘management’ side in ongoing contract talks with state employees unions.”

The links and quotes I provided are solid evidence he CUT the public employee union benefits while he was governor. He also increased the money going to the pension funds instead of stealing from the funds as had been done the 10 years previous to his administration.

Wrong again, moron:

The Garden State Wilts by Steven Malanga, City Journal Winter 2007

"Corzine rejected proposals by legislators from his own party to cut government spending by trimming sky-high public-sector employee benefits. Balking at taking on public-sector unions, Corzine instead is exploring ways to raise revenues through fiscal gimmicks, such as selling the New Jersey Turnpike for $10 billion and putting a big chunk of the proceeds toward fulfilling his campaign pledge to cut property taxes."

CWA Ratifies Revised Contract : New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog

"Workers in the CWA, which covers about half the state’s workforce, agreed to defer a 3.5 percent raise that was due July 1, 2009 by 18 months; they will get two 3.5 percent raises in fiscal 2011. Workers also agreed to nine furlough days over the coming year, on top of one taken in May. In exchange, they receive seven days off from work they can take starting in July 2010 or cash out when they leave state employment, at their pay rate at that time....Republicans, who are hopeful that Governor Corzine will be replaced in this fall’s election, said the agreement ties the hands of the next governor to deal with next year’s multi-billion dollar deficit. “The governor did not need to negotiate these costly, election-year concessions. The courts had upheld his right to furlough workers as he originally proposed. The governor traded a plan that would have saved money during a recession for one that may very well slow the state’s recovery,” said Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean, Jr., R-Union."

Hmmmmmm...doesn't sound like he is cutting their salaries or benefits much to me...

I also provided evidence that one of his GOP predecessors is the one who passed costly increases in benefits given to public employee unions.

Which is wonderful, since I did not mention what corzine predecessors did or did not do, idiot.

You got spanked. Admit it. Sorry your butt hurts.

I'll admit you're an immature ******* idiot with no brains and less facts, sure.

 

[rhodescholar]

The union pension thing is just another aspect of the fallout of the derivatives bubble. Wall Street led everyone to believe the traditional 8 percent annual return on investment (ROI) was a thing of the past, and that all future investments would return 20 percent.

Wrong again, idiot asshole. The public unions keep fighting reductions in the rate so as not to publicise the issue and drive taxes up further.

Time to pay the piper. Promises of higher benefits are going to have to be broken, and all that money that was not put in is now owed, with interest.

Not gonna happen, fuckbrain. The retirees are not going to get paid, period.

This is not a Republican/Democrat thing.

Ask sheldon silver and the rest of the democraps about that, idiot.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

They can't win at the polls, so now they will turn to the Courts to waste more Taxpayer money.

This is what the left has always done. They've had a good portion of their agenda implemented by activist courts over the years because they know the public would never support it.

 

[chanel]

I have no problem with changing the rules for new hires. However the former employees had a contract. We are facing the same situation in NJ. For over a decade, public employees contributed to the pension system, and the lawmakers STOLE the pension money for pet projects.

You have no ******* idea what you are talking about. Corzine promised an increase in benefits EVERY year he was in office.

I respect Gov. Christie for trying to save the system, and certainly he wasn't responsible for the mess. But most people don't understand the complexities of the issue.

It isn't that complicated, Corzine (the MF Global crook) was a thief of the taxpayers' money, and bought votes with it every 4 years.

Please don't call me a liar. Gov. Whitman (R) was the first to steal money from the pension. Corzine is and was a crook, but he was not the first to stick his hands in the cookie jar.

It is far more complicated than you think. But I would never say that "you have no ******* clue". That would be rude. And if an intelligent person like "rhodescholar" is uninformed, imagine the rest of the electorate. That is my ******* point.

From 1994:

But the key to the Whitman miracle lies neither in her political philosophy nor in her spending cuts, but rather in the fine print of her budget. Contained there is a series of arcane fiscal changes that some experts say amount to this: Christine Todd Whitman has balanced New Jersey's books and paid for her tax cut by quietly diverting more than $1 billion from the state's pension fund.

Whitman calls what she did a "reform" of the pension system that puts it on a more "sound actuarial footing." Others are less charitable. The one thing that even the actuarial consultants hired by the Whitman administration agree on, however, is that the chief effect of the changes will be to shift billions of dollars in pension obligations onto New Jersey taxpayers 15 to 20 years from now.

That's now.

 

[daveman]

They can't win at the polls, so now they will turn to the Courts to waste more Taxpayer money.

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the **** up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

Show me in the Constitution where your right to taxpayer money is guaranteed.

Good luck with that.

 

[rhodescholar]

Please don't call me a liar. Gov. Whitman (R) was the first to steal money from the pension. Corzine is and was a crook, but he was not the first to stick his hands in the cookie jar.

Did not claim he was the first, not sure why this keeps coming up. But I do claim he was a strong ally of the public unions, and increased their benefits considerably during his time in office. And yes, they diverted funds but promising ever higher unsustainable benefits was the biggest problem, along with the pipe dream forecast of perpetual 10% or so rates of return in the funds themselves.

It is far more complicated than you think. But I would never say that "you have no ******* clue". That would be rude.

I apologize if I used overly strong terminology; I spend most of my time here in the Mideast forums - much closer to my interests - and the level of poster there (several appear in my sig) are as low quality as I've found on any of the 25 public forums I habit, I should not have lumped you in with that garbage.

 

[g5000]

The union pension thing is just another aspect of the fallout of the derivatives bubble. Wall Street led everyone to believe the traditional 8 percent annual return on investment (ROI) was a thing of the past, and that all future investments would return 20 percent.

Wrong again, idiot asshole. The public unions keep fighting reductions in the rate so as not to publicise the issue and drive taxes up further.

Time to pay the piper. Promises of higher benefits are going to have to be broken, and all that money that was not put in is now owed, with interest.

Not gonna happen, fuckbrain. The retirees are not going to get paid, period.

This is not a Republican/Democrat thing.

Ask sheldon silver and the rest of the democraps about that, idiot.

You really have a hard time accepting reality. It was a Republican that added costly benefits in 2001. This is not a GOP vs. Democrat thing. This is about stupid politicians on both sides of the aisel who don't know shit about high finance being taken advantage of.

It is well known that pension funds throughout the country decreased their contributions into their funds because they believed the Wall Street tale that they were going to be getting higher ROI's in the future.

Corporate pension funds fell for the same line. So did many college endowment funds. States are not the only ones facing shortfalls.

Your partisan hackery is blinding you. And that is the problem today. Rather than identify the actual root causes of a problem, we have hacks like you who fall prey to their confirmation bias and improperly identify the problem, and therefore come up with the wrong solution based on that false premise. And you have no desire to find the common middle ground so that an actual workable solution can be agreed upon by both sides.

 

[rhodescholar]

You really have a hard time accepting reality. It was a Republican that added costly benefits in 2001. This is not a GOP vs. Democrat thing. This is about stupid politicians on both sides of the aisel who don't know shit about high finance being taken advantage of.

It is well known that pension funds throughout the country decreased their contributions into their funds because they believed the Wall Street tale that they were going to be getting higher ROI's in the future.

Corporate pension funds fell for the same line. So did many college endowment funds. States are not the only ones facing shortfalls.

Your partisan hackery is blinding you. And that is the problem today. Rather than identify the actual root causes of a problem, we have hacks like you who fall prey to their confirmation bias and improperly identify the problem, and therefore come up with the wrong solution based on that false premise. And you have no desire to find the common middle ground so that an actual workable solution can be agreed upon by both sides.

First, I'm an Independent, and dislike both dems and republicans. My issue was never with corzine being a democrat, it was that he was a friend of the pub emp unions. Re-read my posts, I never made issue of his party affiliation.

Second, yes, dipping into the funds or deficiently funding them is an issue, but making the initial promise in the first place was the core problem - the gov't should never have done so to begin with.

I do find it hilarious that the unions are fighting from allowing the actuaries from using lower rates of returns since it would highlight how much more taxes would be needed to fund the plans. The PEU don't want the public to be made aware of the boondoggle, and are doing everything they can to **** everyone and every thing else over to keep the gravy train running, right over the cliff.

 

[g5000]

Pension Fund Management 101:

The interest cost and the service cost of a pension plan represent projected benefit obligation increases, for the period, that the pension plan must eventually pay. A portion of the funds needed to pay the increased projected benefit obligation comes from income from pension investments. The return from these investments reduces pension expense because it reduces the amount the employer must contribute. Recall from the discussion in the text that total expense must equal total cash outflow. Because earnings on pension investments reduce the cash outflow the employer must contribute to the pension plan, the return on pension investments reduces pension expense.

http://academic.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0324381980_74245.pdf

The Pew Center on States in their February 2010 study indicated a wide variation in the ratios of individual plans. The report indicated 11 states had funded levels above 90% and 10 were less than 70% funded in 2008. Of those states funded above 90%, Washington and Wisconsin were 100% funded, Florida is 101% funded, and New York is 107% funded. Those states with low funded ratios include Illinois (54%), Kansas (59%), Oklahoma and Rhode Island (61%), Connecticut (62%), and Massachusetts (63%).

Remember I said many states, corporations, endowment funds assumed an ROI higher than 8 percent? 8% used to be the baseline assumption for calculating how much money needed to be contributed to a fund each year. But during the derivatives bubble, the assumption was raised considerably. So if you think you will be getting a higher ROI than 8 percent, you are not going to contribute as much as you would if you stuck with the 8 percent assumption. Thus, if your contributions are lower as a result, and then the bubble pops and everything reverts back to the mean of 8 percent, you are caught with your pants down:

In addition to looking at the “aggregate” state contributions, the report identifies when each state will run out of funds given an 8% return on their assets and that they use future contributions to fund new benefits in full. To see individual states, please see the attached table, “When Might State Pension Funds Run Dry?” To the extent that pension program benefits are reduced or contributions by employees are increased, funding life would extend. While this as an outcome is uncertain, and changes will be difficult to affect, dialogue on this topic is growing.

"Dialog on this topic is growing". He said that in 2010. And now the dialog is quite loud indeed.

Following the link in that quote (note the date of the report is 2010 when reading "near future"):

The pension plans sponsored by states and municipalities will place a substantial burden on state and local public finances in the near future. My recent work has estimated that the present value of already-promised state pension benefits is over $5 trillion when the benefit payments are discounted using Treasury yields, compared to a little over $2 trillion in pension fund assets.

As the accompanying table shows, the day of reckoning is in fact not as far away as some might imagine. Under my projections, seven states run out of money before 2020, including Louisiana (2017), Illinois (2018), New Jersey (2018), and Connecticut (2018). Thirty more states are expected to run out of money during the 2020s.

We have been talkinig about New Jersey already, but Illinois is in really bad shape right now. They have recently raised income taxes at a record pace, sales taxes, all kinds of taxes, trying to keep up with their pension fund obligations.

If we are going to keep providing generous pensions to state workers, taxes will have to rise dramatically in the near future to pay for them. Alternatively, public employee benefits could be limited to the extent possible under the law, and other spending could be cut. The most equitable solution is probably one in which both taxpayers and public employees share in the pain to some extent. One thing is for certain: to continue ignoring the problem until states run bankrupt is not in anyone’s interest.

And again, this is not a problem unique to the states. Corporations are looking at an identical problem. As are endowment funds.

 

[g5000]

In 2005 public employers contributed 7.7 percent of wages for most pensioners; they now contribute 10.6 percent. Over that time, the Legislature raised employee contributions a half-percent to 6.5.

Overly optimistic investment expectations are part of the problem, said experts who have sounded alarms about shortfalls in state pension funding.

"We're not simply saying that they're mis-estimating stock returns, but that they shouldn't be using the expected return on a risky portfolio to determine the value of a bunch of guaranteed benefits," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

To hit high return rates, South Carolina's Investment Commission in 2008 approved making riskier investments that can have big payoffs. But those big risks can come at a cost. After the stock market crashed that year, the state took a $7.6 billion loss. It has recovered somewhat since then but remains below pre-recession levels.

If S.C. pension fund falters, we all pay | The Post and Courier | Charleston SC, News, Sports, Entertainment


Nowadays, with the Fed keeping interest rates near zero to help Wall Street recover its losses, even an 8 percent ROI assumption is overly optimistic.

 

[rhodescholar]

Nowadays, with the Fed keeping interest rates near zero to help Wall Street recover its losses, even an 8 percent ROI assumption is overly optimistic.

Tell that to the public employee unions, who are refusing to allow lower rates to be applied.