We moan about the pensions because they are unsustainable and long term expenses. We can figure out the net present value of a perpetual expense, well if I have a calculator and can push the buttons.
Perhaps not quite this bad in the rest of the country, but California has, along with its well known allotment of loose nuts, a bunch of loose checkbooks in Sacramento. Thus:
There are outrageous examples of abuse in the California public pension system.
PensionTsunami.com, which has been tracking the pension fund liability issue for five years, has found that 9,233 retired members of CalPERS or CalSTRS receive more than $100,000 per year in retirement benefits, amounting to more than a billion dollars a year.
The retired city administrator of Vernon, California, Bruce Malkenhorst, receives an annual pension of $449,675 from CalPERS. Vernon, a Los Angeles suburb, has 92 residents.
California's state employee pension fund liabilities have ballooned for years with increased numbers of state employees, many of whom can retire at age 50, can "spike" their last years' income with overtime to increase their retirement, and can then move on to other government or private jobs without losing their pensions.
Why should Californians care about this confusing, complicated budget problem with a huge, unfathomable invoice attached? David Crane, writing for the Los Angeles Times, says that today's pension fund shortfall is tomorrow's budget cut to something some Californian is likely to miss.
In California's case, past pension underfunding means reduced funding of current programs. This explains why pension costs rose 2,000% from 1999 to 2009, while state funding for higher education declined over the same period.
Californians are feeling the pain of the budget crisis, but they often misplace their criticisms.
From that site:
California pension reform group posts list of 3000 retired teachers with pensions of $100,000 or more |
