Posted on 02/25/2017 6:21:44 PM PST by artichokegrower
The impact of ever-higher pension costs on California’s local governments, particularly cities, has been evident for years.
Pension burdens contributed to the recent bankruptcies of three cities and more are feeling the pinch.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
That's the least part of the problem. Main problem are the unions, demanding big benefits. And the management in cities and counties giving in to the unions, passing the problem to future taxpayers by promising huge returns of 7 to 8 percent a year on investments, when they know it's closer to 1 to 2 percent. At least that's what they tell the taxpayers, don't worry, we'll get 8 percent returns on pension fund investments. But the fine print is that the tax payers are on the hook if the investment returns don't pan out. The low returns are not the problem. The problem is the unions and government management are screwing the taxpayers.
let them live in the crap that they themselves created...
Public employee labor unions extort sweetheart deals from elected officials who won’t stand firm.
Heck why fight it?
It’s only taxpayer money.
And higher pensions for union workers means higher pensions for everyone else, especially the bureaucrats and elected officials who give in to the unions.
and those govt workers should never have demanded and nor should they expect it....
Of course this should never have been promised. It used to be people took a job in public service and accepted lower pay than the private sector, but traded that for job security. Today many public sector jobs pay better than their equivalent jobs in the private sector. And their benefits packages can be ludicrous.
Of course they will expect this since this is what has been promised. So they will demand it, and they will rise in anger when they will be asked to start contributing 2x-3x more than they have been, and/or to accept less in retirement. It should be expected that the courts will seek to protect the public workers retirement system from changes - the judges are in the same boat! We need a state Constitutional Amendment to reform it and the sooner the better because they have a huge voting block in local, state and federal employees who will vote their own pocketbook - not to mention their spouses and families. The private sector will have to stand tall and fast. I would still not be surprised to see a court rule that a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional.
Everyone would love to a plan where they contribute for 25-30 years in order to guarantee a lifetime at 90% annual income thereafter. Of course this cannot be guaranteed - the state cannot print money, to pay these sums they have to earn it, raise it in their ponzi scheme, or tax the residents. Soon many states will press Congress for bail outs because they cannot print money and will blame Congress for whatever excuse they can dream up for their shortfalls. And if Congress does bail them out, all sense of fairness should require them to have to equalize Social Security. Otherwise it’s just more of the same - government working to protect itself as exempt from laws, exempt from economics, and as a special class worthy of more than ‘regular citizens’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.