Democrats what is wrong with you?

[Tom P]

Am I the only one who remembers Bill/Hillary Clinton and their answer to welfare.....WORKfare?

The intent and purpose was to give needy individuals financial assistance, but to require them to prove that they provided part of the cost of supporting themselves and their families.....in essence, they had to prove that they were working (if capable). There was additional moneys available for education, ostensibly in order to get the "needy" training that would help them remove themselves from the welfare ranks for good.

IIRC, there was a 4 year limit to benefits under "WORKfare".

Was this just a dream I had? Does anyone else remember it?

Cheers from Doug!!

I remember, what happened? Did they stop it, no oversite, give up? I don't have any idea. Sounded good at the time.

 

[Ian K]

Thought some of you might be interested in this:

Why employee pensions aren't bankrupting states | McClatchy

Seems like public pensions are not the problem many are trying to paint it to be.

Ian

 

[Tom P]

I imagine if one searches long enough they can find proof to support either view. The problem is, that an inordinate number of states are having real financial trouble, and something has to be done. I've seen posts where people believe that everything is just fine with California's finances when that state is near the top of the list for debt. We can't just cover our eyes and make believe nothing is wrong. At some point it gets beyond the point of no return.

 

[Pat]

Thought some of you might be interested in this:

Why employee pensions aren't bankrupting states | McClatchy

Seems like public pensions are not the problem many are trying to paint it to be.

Ian

I don't think so. In December, the Stanford University's Institute for Economic Policy Research released a study suggesting a more than $500 billion unfunded liability for California's three biggest pension funds—Calpers, Calstrs and the University of California Retirement System. The shortfall is about six times the size of this year's California state budget and seven times more than the outstanding voter-approved general obligations bonds. That's a problem.

What you examine the study you cited (by pension administors who perhaps don't want to look bad) it reflects the state level, where the current contribution is relatively low, but it’s growing and should be much higher to meet future obligations. CalPERS and other retirement systems nationwide have engaged in a process known as “smoothing,” whereby they spread out the risks further into the future — sort of like refinancing that Ford Focus for 20 years to keep the payment low. Thay also make rosey investment return projections to project future solvency that have been well off the mark. Their goal is to hide the amount of debt in order to avoid calls for pension reform, given that legislators will howl if they need to funnel additional billions of dollars in general fund revenue into the state pension systems.

Have a look and decide for yourself How Severe is U.S. pension debt? | CalWatchDog

 

[Doug S.]

I'm not sure what your point is, Veek, but it seems to be that just because public employees are promised a retirement, you don't see any reason why the states should honor their promises when times are hard. I could see the reasoning in possibly reducing the amount of the retirement contribution made by the state from this date forward, pending whatever sort of legislative action might be required to enact it, but to enact a retroactive reduction that "takes back" all those benefits earned under the current legislative action seems rather back handed to me.

But, then, I would expect that of the Republicans....after all, the slime who represented my very district (Tom Delay) was recently convicted of felony campaign fraud. When the sentence was handed down by the judge, the judge asked him if he had anything to say, if he was sorry, and all he could say was something to the effect that he couldn't feel sorry for doing something that he didn't think was wrong. Not only slimy, but blatantly unrepentent in the face of the judicial system, too. Typical Republican, IMHO.

Promises are promises, committments are committments. It's like a legal contract to me. The states ought to be responsible for the pensions earned by every public employee under the current "contract". Change the contract now and avoid the expense of future significant expense if you may, but at least the people who are counting on the government to act in good faith regarding their committments and contributions to pension plans will know what to expect. The government owes at least that much to the people who work for them, but the Republicans seem to want to try to balance the budget at the expense of every public employee (except police and firefighters, what's up with that?), while not requiring the self-employed or those employed by businesses other than governmental agencies to share in the cost. Seems somewhat selective to me. A deal is a deal, if they don't like the deal they should re-negotiate it, but the Republicans are too cowardly to do that, they essentially "decertify" the unions with whom they made the previous deal, thereby ensuring that the government has the power to run roughshod over the rights of the poor.

SHAME on them, and SHAME on those who think this power grab in WI was a good idea.....it was backhanded, slimy politics at best. I bet this will end up in court and hopefully the government will get what IMHO they deserve.

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Ian K]

What you examine the study you cited (by pension administors who perhaps don't want to look bad) it reflects the state level, where the current contribution is relatively low, but it’s growing and should be much higher to meet future obligations.

The study was by non-partisan researchers at Boston College ...

Boston College researchers project that if the assets in state and local pension plans were frozen tomorrow and there was no more growth in investment returns, there'd still be enough money in most state plans to pay benefits for years to come.

"On average, with the assets on hand today, plans are able to pay annual benefits at their current level for another 13 years. This assumes, pessimistically, that plans make no future pension contributions and there is no growth in assets," said Jean-Pierre Aubry, a researcher specializing in state and local pensions for the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

boldness for emphasis is mine.

Also, the under funding does not reflect what would happen if everyone retired at once, but rather, over the long term. Hence, the "smoothing". And, while I agree with this point from the article you posted:

f a person starts work in an agency that offers “2.7 percent at 55,” that person will retire with 81 percent of their final year’s pay after 30 years, period. That’s far more generous than what’s available to most private-sector workers. Reporters need to do more comparisons between private-sector and public-sector benefits.

it leaves out that during the boom years, private sector employees received stock options and matching 401k plans that public sector employees do not enjoy. Both sides have taken major hits as a result of the economic crash. The difference being the private sector can wash their hands of it since the stock options and 401k plans become the responsibility of the employee, while public pensions are guaranteed by the employers (unless they ask for government intervention a la many airlines).

I can get you current figures as regards to the UCRS pension issues (at most recent estimate). At one time, it was so over funded that the Feds stepped in an threatened to hit the UC with taxes and penalties. Hence, employee contributions were moved from UCRS to a secondary DC plan, and the state stopped their "contractual" contributions - this has lasted about 20 years. Now, employee contributions are getting redirected back to UCRS, but the state has not reimplemented it's contribution.

Ian

 

[Ian K]

I don't think so. In December, the Stanford University's Institute for Economic Policy Research released a study suggesting a more than $500 billion unfunded liability for California's three biggest pension funds—Calpers, Calstrs and the University of California Retirement System. The shortfall is about six times the size of this year's California state budget and seven times more than the outstanding voter-approved general obligations bonds. That's a problem.

Oh, and one major problem with the above statement. UCRS is not a burden on the state budget as it is a privately funded and managed pension. There is no state obligation.

Also, UCRS is a "2.5% at 60" plan, so after 30 years, would get 75% of their highest three year average.

I have read the SIEPR report, and, one has to take into account, it was written by grad students. They make some pretty interesting assumptions in it, ones that I am not quite sure are valid. The biggest has to do with the "discount rate" for future liabilities. THe discount rate set by the the fund managers of CalPers, CalSTRS, and UCRS, varies between 7.5% and 8% (this is, basically, the expected average rate of return on investments). As a result, the worst of the three systems has an 86.1% funding ratio and the best has a 98% funding ratio. The study reduces the discount rate to 4.1% across the board (they do not state where they came up with that number), which yields funding ratios of 49.9% to 59.3%. I tend to lean towards the financial experts who actually manage these funds, and not five grad students who just finished a two quarter practicum on public policy as to which seems more accurate.

To be fair, the brief from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College was written by the Center's director (who was a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy and spent 20 years at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, where she became senior vice president and director of research in 1984) and two research associates, but the two RAs are working within a program specifically designed for and based upon the topics of retirement and pension funding. That is still better than a two quarter practicum by public policy and international policy grad students.

Ian

 

[Jim Craik]

Ian,

Thanks for clearing that up, that was very well written!

Veek is noted for huge exaggerations. He has chosen to believe whatever his handlers tell him. It's kind of sad

Last week he said that President Obama has hired over 200,000 new government employees. Implying that he is growing a huge government, almost as fast as Reagan, which can't be done.

He failed to mention that they were temporary census workers, required by the Constitution.

It seemed like Veeks numbers were way out of line. Thanks for adding some facts.

["Figures lie and liars figure"...][/QUOTE]posted by Veek

Veek are you righting an autobiography?