Public Pension Pandemic

[Guest032516]

Let's take a break from who's going to Israel and whether or not Al Qaeda is on the ropes or resurgent.

Here is something closer to home - bankrupt public pensions:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100929269

Key quote:
------------------------------------------------------
"Thanks to a patchwork of accounting practices and rosy investment assumptions, it's not even clear just how big a financial hole many states and cities have dug for themselves. That may soon change, thanks to a new set of government accounting standards that could serve as a nasty wake-up call to states and cities relying on rosy scenarios and head-in-the-sand accounting."
------------------------------------------------------

Got that? Rosy predictions and head-in-the-sand accounting practices.

Here is a novel idea. Dump the defined benefit plans (rosy pensions) and switch them all to defined contribution plans (401k plans).

That way your retirement is dependent on what you put away and not on the ability of taxpayers in 2043 to cover the promises that your union "negotiated" in 2013 with compliant politicians.

Just sayin...

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Let's take a break from who's going to Israel and whether or not Al Qaeda is on the ropes or resurgent.

Here is something closer to home - bankrupt public pensions:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100929269

Key quote:
------------------------------------------------------
"Thanks to a patchwork of accounting practices and rosy investment assumptions, it's not even clear just how big a financial hole many states and cities have dug for themselves. That may soon change, thanks to a new set of government accounting standards that could serve as a nasty wake-up call to states and cities relying on rosy scenarios and head-in-the-sand accounting."
------------------------------------------------------

Got that? Rosy predictions and head-in-the-sand accounting practices.

Here is a novel idea. Dump the defined benefit plans (rosy pensions) and switch them all to defined contribution plans (401k plans).

That way your retirement is dependent on what you put away and not on the ability of taxpayers in 2043 to cover the promises that your union "negotiated" in 2013 with compliant politicians.

Just sayin...

The only thing that a 401k retirement plan will guarantee is that it will be taxed.

just sayin'

[LexusLover]

First, one should determine "why" and "how" ... the rest is relatively easy to "handle."

All the administrators of the plans ... will be lined up against the wall.

Photoed, booked, tried, incarcerated, and left there until they return all the money they stole or they die.

Secondly, and simultaneously, the funds are traced to their personal accounts and property ... and all of the funds and property will be seized, converted to cash, and held to account for the losses .. if one dime of the pension funds (trust funds) went into any account or piece of property.

Thirdly, any off shore money out of reach will be charged against any "on shore" money or property and collected as in #2 above. No body in the administrator's family gets a dime until all the money is paid back.

Absolute prohibition against bankruptcy relief of ANY KIND.

After 10 years if not every dime is returned with interest and penalty ... they get tin cans tied to their ankles and shipped to Gitmo to live with the other scum.

[CJ7]

11th amendment

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

First, one should determine "why" and "how" ... the rest is relatively easy to "handle."

All the administrators of the plans ... will be lined up against the wall.

Photoed, booked, tried, incarcerated, and left there until they return all the money they stole or they die.

Secondly, and simultaneously, the funds are traced to their personal accounts and property ... and all of the funds and property will be seized, converted to cash, and held to account for the losses .. if one dime of the pension funds (trust funds) went into any account or piece of property.

Thirdly, any off shore money out of reach will be charged against any "on shore" money or property and collected as in #2 above. No body in the administrator's family gets a dime until all the money is paid back.

Absolute prohibition against bankruptcy relief of ANY KIND.

After 10 years if not every dime is returned with interest and penalty ... they get tin cans tied to their ankles and shipped to Gitmo to live with the other scum.

I think you missed the point.

It is not the case that somebody stole the money from public employee pension funds. This isn't like the mob treating the Teamster's pension fund like an ATM.

The problem here is that the cities and states never put enough money into the pension funds in the first place. Not only that, they based all assumptions on something like 8-10% annual growth rates for the pension funds. The real interest rates have been more like 4-6% and more recently, 1-2%.

The unions and government officials entered into rigged negotiations designed to prevent any strikes by making ludicrous promises that no one could meet 20-30 years later.

So the money just isn't there.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CJ7

11th amendment

??

It may not be relevant. It depends on who is suing whom. This is relatively uncharted waters.

If, say, the Detroit police union fund cannot meet obligations and the administrator seeks bankruptcy protection in federal court that is not a suit commenced against the state of Michigan. So federal bankruptcy courts many have jurisdiction.

If someone sues the state of Michigan or the city of Detroit and gets an order from a Michigan state judge tp pay up, then you have a clash between the Michigan court and the federal bankruptcy court.

Then it may be a matter of the federal Supremacy Clause.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I think you missed the point.

I think not. Those are steps.

It is my understanding from reading about it that the shortfall in the Detroit PD (unionized) Pension Fund was the result of theft.

There are two kinds of "theft" at least in these situations .. the withheld from payroll is diverted away from the fund or the fund is raided. Because they are "trust funds" any misappropriation and/or diversion of funds is legally "theft" (or conversion, if you please.)

ID where the money went, line those up who facilitated, conspired, and/or assisted ...

try them, punishment, collect back the money out of whatever they had.

Bullshit on the taxpayers COUGHING UP AGAIN!

That's what the unions want to do ... screw the unions.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

??

If someone sues the state of Michigan or the city of Detroit and gets an order from a Michigan state judge tp pay up, then you have a clash between the Michigan court and the federal bankruptcy court.

Then it may be a matter of the federal Supremacy Clause.

If the funds are taken illegally, as in theft, and there is an intentional tort recovery on that basis with punitive damages .. it's not dischargeable in BK. Structure the suit and the recovery to be a "tort" recovery.

[Jackie S]

The only problems that Cities and States have is they cannot print money like the Federal government can, and most States are required to have a balanced budget.

If the Federal Government could not simply borrow more, and print more, it would be in the same situation.

[Randy4Candy]

Well, back when the public sector needed workers they said, "Work for us for less and we'll make it up to you with a nice pension." Oops. You know, kind of what we do now with the military with the 4 year VA benefits waiting list (don't blame the Obama Admin. look at Kongress for that, boyzzz). Promise them anything and screw 'em later (hmmm, sounds like a Republican Platform Plank, doesn't it?).

!!!Brilliant!!!

I wish you phuckers weren't so freaking stupid, unknowledgeable and generally uninformed. You've just about selected out everything out of your selective memory but your carbon copy "talking points" you eat daily at the trough of the National Socialist Network.

[Guest123018-4]

One of th3e main reasons the USPS is losing money, other than the obvious, is because they are required to fully fund their pension plan. With them, it is pay it now from the current taxpayers rather than shove it down the road for future taxpayers.

Either way, the taxpayer is going to pay.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

The majority of companies in the private sector, including mine, did away with pensions years ago. Simply too expensive in the long run. Plus, in today's work place, very few workers stay with a company long enough to grow a pension to make it significant.
Companies have move instead to supplementing 401k's.

This is the direction, IMHO, that Federal, state, and local governments should go. A friend of mine retired from the Federal government after 30 years of service and received a pension of something like 88 or 92% of his last year's pay, which was substantially increased by putting in a great deal of overtime in that last year. What a racket? I am fully vested in my company's pension plan and I will retire with something like 40% of my pay.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think not. Those are steps.

It is my understanding from reading about it that the shortfall in the Detroit PD (unionized) Pension Fund was the result of theft.

There are two kinds of "theft" at least in these situations .. the withheld from payroll is diverted away from the fund or the fund is raided. Because they are "trust funds" any misappropriation and/or diversion of funds is legally "theft" (or conversion, if you please.)

ID where the money went, line those up who facilitated, conspired, and/or assisted ...

try them, punishment, collect back the money out of whatever they had.

Bullshit on the taxpayers COUGHING UP AGAIN!

That's what the unions want to do ... screw the unions.

Let's be clear. I am not advocating - under any circumstances - forcing taxpayers to pay more. In particular, I am loathe to have taxpayers from other states bail out pension funds in the bankrupt states via a federal bailout.

But my comments were not confined to Detroit and neither was the article. There may have been theft of the Detroit PD funds, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule. Many California cities are in deep trouble and the CALPERS system if grossly underfunded, but it isn't because there has been massive theft. They simply over-promised and underpaid on benefits and based there projections on something like 10% annual returns.

They acted as though the dotcom bubble of the 1990 was going to last forever and all of the states bills would be magically paid for by investments returns on stock portfolios. Who do you put in jail for that?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Let's be clear. I am not advocating - under any circumstances - forcing taxpayers to pay more. In particular, I am loathe to have taxpayers from other states bail out pension funds in the bankrupt states via a federal bailout.

But my comments were not confined to Detroit and neither was the article. There may have been theft of the Detroit PD funds, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule. Many California cities are in deep trouble and the CALPERS system if grossly underfunded, but it isn't because there has been massive theft. They simply over-promised and underpaid on benefits and based there projections on something like 10% annual returns.

They acted as though the dotcom bubble of the 1990 was going to last forever and all of the states bills would be magically paid for by investments returns on stock portfolios. Who do you put in jail for that?

You could argue that the promises made by the politicians, to the unions, got them elected. Since they knew, or should have known, that the promises were not valid, it is a case of theft by deception. Since they were all liberal Democrats defrauding the public, lining them up and shooting them seems reasonable if any of the recipients commit suicide as a result of losing their pensions later, insofar as their lying and deceitful overt acts or actions caused the death of another.
Second, why doesn't Obama just bail them out? Print some more money and make the problem go away? The reason is he doesn't want the states to tax the Feds through the backdoor. He is essentially afraid of states rights in this matter. If he bails out anyone, he has to bail them all out. If he does that, every state could create the same problem, forcing the Feds to bail out everyone, a sort of reverse taxation and it would give the states supremacy over the Feds, a backdoor method of each state taxing the Federal government.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Many California cities are in deep trouble and the CALPERS system if grossly underfunded, but it isn't because there has been massive theft. They simply over-promised and underpaid on benefits and based there projections on something like 10% annual returns.

They acted as though the dotcom bubble of the 1990 was going to last forever and all of the states bills would be magically paid for by investments returns on stock portfolios. Who do you put in jail for that?

I agree with the assessment in California ... the large amounts they pay to upper level administrators is disgusting, on the backs of the lower level employees. California runs thru money like shit through a goose.

Texas Reliant Energy rates have factored into them the losses of RE in California, so that is a "tax" in TEXAS to pay those bastards outrageous energy bills they walked when the state went tits up ... just remember that Obamacare is a figment of their imagination! Let the bastards go broke. Who cares.