The plans would collapse without huge taxpayer bailouts. You have not paid careful attention to the California situation. The California plans have huge amounts of unfunded liabilities. If the California plans were subject to ERISA regulations and no taxpayer bailouts were available, the plans would collapse in the next year. There has already been a large bailout of the California plans. Much more pain is in the future.
I HAVE been paying attention and I have concluded that you must be making this up as you go. The funds are close to 100% funding. California pensions ARE subject to ERISA. And there have been NO huge bailouts.
If you want to continue to try to make these crazy statements, you better come up with some citations and links to support them. Trust me, I'm prepared to knock every single one down.
This page indicates the bailout. Since 2003, state contribution rates have increased substantially. The current economic climate will lead to future contribution rate increases (bailouts). In addition, the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility web page has a list of articles about pension funding problems in California.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/general_govt/gen_25_anl06.html
I will concede this point. I am against any policy that politicizes pensions. The trouble with DB plans is that the contribution rate is easily manipulated. In good times, the rate is lowered and in bad times it is increased. The taxpayer cannot assume responsibility for retirement lifestyles. DC plans provide a fixed rate without the potential for politization of the contribution rates.
Here is a page indicating that public employee pension funds are not governed by ERISA. Unless the law has changed since 2003, public employee pension funds are not covered by ERISA.
http://www.nasra.org/resources/sandpfaq.pdf
You made some comments about transition from a DB to DC plan. I concede that valuation is necessary in a transition. Transition is a special case, a one-time event. Comparison of the plan costs should not be made using transition costs. My comments about plan costs and benefits involve a steady situation without transition costs.
Here is my bottom line:
DB plans like Colorado and California represent large amounts of undeclared (not disclosed in compensation surveys), deferred compensation. There is a sizable literature to support this assertion. DB plans are costly and unpredictable. DB plans are not necessary to attract a competent government workforce. DB plans are subject to political manipulation. If a DB plan is to be offered, it should be based on the federal FERS plan with much lower benefits than state plans like Colorado and California. DB plans should be financed by the private sector with fixed asset investments, similar to the financing of single premium insurance annuities. Public employees should be given the choice between a DC plan and a low benefit rate DB plan.