SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (42841)4/25/2010 2:17:46 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
The New Fat Cats
The indefensible pensions of public-sector employees.
BY Fred Barnes
May 3, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 31


John Edwards was right. There are two Americas, just not his two (the rich and powerful versus everyone else). The real divide today is, on one side, the 20 million people who work for state and local governments and the additional 3 million who’ve retired with fat pensions. On the other, the rest of us, roughly 280 million Americans. In short, there’s a gulf between the bureaucrats and the people.

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey puts his fight with teachers and their union in roughly those terms. He says there are “two classes of citizens in New Jersey: those who enjoy rich public benefits and those who pay for them.” The teachers want to keep a pay raise and continue to pay a minimal share of their retiree benefits.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, state and local government salaries are 34 percent higher than those for private sector jobs. Okay, that’s partly because government workers tend to have white-collar jobs. Benefits, 70 percent higher for these workers, are the real rub. And benefits for government retirees are the most flagrant. They’ve become a national scandal, a fiscal nightmare for states, cities, and towns, and an example of unfairness of the sort liberals routinely complain about but are mostly silent about just now.

Let’s start with horror stories of pensions run amok. If these tales of wretched excess at the expense of taxpayers don’t infuriate you, you’re jaded from decades of overindulgence by governments large and small:

• In Contra Costa, California, the final salary of one fire chief, 51, was $221,000. He was given an annual, guaranteed pension of $284,000. Another chief, 50, whose final salary was $185,000, got a pension of $241,000. Credit the Contra Costa Times with uncovering this.

• Christie cited two tales in February when he declared a state of fiscal emergency in New Jersey. One retiree, 49, paid “a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments and health benefits.” A retired teacher paid $62,000. She’ll get “$1.4 million in pension benefits and another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime.”

• In New York, a pensioner in the state retirement system received $641,000 in state payments in a single year. He was a triple dipper. He had a pension of $261,000, the highest in the state. He had a post in the state university system in which he made $280,000. And he was paid $100,000 a year as a consultant for the agency from which he’d retired, the teachers’ retirement system.

• Except for new hires, state workers in New York can retire at 55 with guaranteed benefits to which they contribute only in their first 10 years of work. They pay no state income tax on their pensions, and overtime is counted in computing the size of pensions. “Compared with the average New York worker, state and local government employees receive the gold standard of pensions,” the Syracuse Post-Standard said last year.

• Also in New York, the retirement system is riddled with lucrative pensions for retirees who were fired or convicted of crimes related to their state jobs. Former comptroller Alan Hevesi, who once ran the state’s $154 billion pension fund, was found guilty of defrauding the state. Yet he’s got a pension of $104,123.

• In California, 9,111 retired government workers have pensions of more than $100,000. One retiree draws an annual pension of $509,664. Among retired teachers, 3,065 receive more than $100,000. One gets $285,460. Pensions for retired state workers and teachers will rise 2 percent this year, though Social Security recipients aren’t getting any cost-of-living increase. The hike in California isn’t tied to inflation.

• The city of Vallejo, California, declared bankruptcy in 2008, largely because the payroll for police, firefighters, and their pensions and overtime consumed three-fourths of the budget. City employees could retire at 55 with 81 percent of their last year’s salary guaranteed as pensions. In bankruptcy negotiations, however, Vallejo officials declined to reduce current pensions.

• In San Luis Obispo, California, the county spends more than five times more on pensions than it does on prosecuting criminals, the Sacramento Bee reported. Pensions are 11.2 percent of the budget. “The old joke is that General Motors is just a health insurance company that makes cars on the side,” county supervisor Adam Hill said. “My concern is that the county government is becoming a pension provider that provides government services on the side.”

• In California, a state worker in Sacramento switched to a higher-paying state job in San Francisco the year before retirement. Pensions are based only on the final year, so the practice of “spiking” pay to increase one’s pension, while supposedly illegal, is hardly unknown, nor are dubious claims of disability. Police, highway patrolmen, prison guards, and firefighters are eligible to retire at 50 with pensions of 3 percent of the last year’s salary times the years of work. Trust me, that formula leads to very generous pensions.

The lofty pay scales and benefits for government workers—as compared with those in the private sector—suggest the idea of “public service” isn’t what it used to be. Once, taking a government job meant a sacrifice in pay and benefits. No more. Most bureaucrats have secure, recession-proof jobs with automatic salary increases, paid leave, and lavish benefits, notably in retirement. And they get to retire earlier than private sector workers.

Christie has asked, Is this fair? The answer is no. But if you happen to think it is fair, I’d advise you to click on the website pensiontsunami.com. It’s operated by one person in California who daily posts fresh examples of pension abuse across the country.

But lack of fairness isn’t the biggest problem with exorbitant pensions. The pension explosion has created a fiscal crisis in many states, cities, and towns across the country, California being the worst off. Not only are pensions for government workers a perilously unfunded liability for many states, their soaring cost is causing sharp cuts in other programs.

“Paying for those pension promises is already crowding out funding for higher education, for parks, and for other areas like health care??.??.??.??and that crowding out is only going to get worse,” California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said last week in touting a pension reform plan. “In California, we had the Internet bubble, we had the housing bubble, and I see in the very near future a public pension bubble.”

He’s not exaggerating. State pension funds have gone up 2,000 percent in the past decade. The unfunded pension debt in California is $500 billion, according to a new study by Stanford University’s public policy program. It’s seven times greater than the state’s general obligation bonds, says Schwarzenegger adviser David Crane.

A staggering pension shortfall “is not just [in] California,” Crane told me. “It’s every state.” Nationwide, unfunded retirement benefits are $3.2 trillion, according to Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. On top of that, he estimates the unfunded debt for the health coverage of state and local government retirees is $1.4 trillion.

At least 17 states have either enacted or looked into cost-cutting pension reforms in the past two years, says Ed Mendel, a pension expert in California. In Illinois and New York, both with large unfunded liabilities, the rules governing pensions have been tweaked, though solely for new government employees.

Only Alaska, Michigan, and the District of Columbia have adopted the obvious long-term solution to the pension mess: putting new workers in 401(k) defined-contribution plans rather than defined-benefit plans. The switch would save billions. Even Virginia’s new, conservative governor, Bob McDonnell, declined to do this for new state workers, instead requiring them to pony up 5 percent for a traditional pension. (Current Virginia workers pay nothing.) But hope lies in the state with the worst pension situation. Meg Whitman, the likely Republican nominee for governor of California, says she would make the switch for new state hires.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

weeklystandard.com



To: TimF who wrote (42841)6/20/2010 4:45:43 PM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
THE GOLDEN AGE OF GOVERNMENT UNIONS IS OVER
By Neal Boortz @ June 14, 2010 8:17 AM

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat


People are finally starting to catch on .. at least we can hope that they are. The jig is up for government union workers. The people are sick and tired of footing the bill, in the form of tax increases, for the ever-increasing salaries and benefits of government union workers while they, the taxpayers, are having to cut back. Meanwhile, one would expect that the more you pay for something, the better quality you will receive. In fact, the opposite seems to be true: the more we pay to support government workers, the less productive and efficient they become. Of course this cannot be said for every government worker, but the system as a whole has returned very little for our increasing financial support. We, the taxpayers are, what the San Francisco Chronicle appropriately calls, "captive consumers." We can't choose NOT to pay taxes that fund government workers and their unions. This is different from the private sector where you, as a consumer, could choose to spend your money elsewhere, or not at all .. hence the word "captive." We are slaves of government workers, their union demands and the growing sense of entitlement in this country.

The unions - the goons running the show and the people who buy into it - can no longer claim victimhood, upset that they are being demonized by the public at large. That isn't going to fly because the people of this country know full well that these unions brought it on themselves. THEY are the ones who demanded pay that in no way reflected their value or any increase in their work product. THEY are the ones who demanded unrealistic pension plans, allowing members to retire at absurdly young ages with set payouts and benefits for life. THE GOONIONS are the ones who used their political power to make sure that the people in office knew that the unions put them there.

Here are just a few examples from California, where government union contracts have the state on the verge of a Greece-like meltdown. California (Or Mexifornia, if you will) --- a state where government pension costs have increased by an amazing 2,000% over the past decade. This is from Daniel Borenstein at the Contra Costa Times:

•A retired Northern California fire chief whose $185,000 salary morphed into a $241,000 annual pension

•A county administrator whose $240,000 starting pension was 98 percent of final salary

•A sanitary district manager who qualified for a $217,000 pension on a salary of $234,000.
But it is not just California, folks. By 2020, seven states are expected to run out of money to pay for government pension plans, according to Joshua D. Rauh of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Those states are Illinois, Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, Hawaii, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Knowing that can't afford the employees they already have, this hasn't stopped these states from hiring even more workers! At a time when our private sector has shed millions of jobs, these states have hired a combined 9,700 workers to both state and local government payrolls.

Amazing. If you're not already disgusted, maybe you can read some stellar research on the topic. Look no further than this article by the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards: Overpaid Federal Workers. Here are some of the highlights (if you can call 'em that) of his findings:

•In 2008, federal civilian workers had an average wage of $79,197, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. By comparison, the average wage of the nation's 108 million private-sector workers was $50,028.
•In 2008, federal workers enjoyed average benefits of $40,785, which compared to average benefits in the U.S. private sector of just $9,881.
•In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged $119,982, or double the private-sector average of $59,909.
•Between late 2007 and mid-2009, the number of federal workers earning more than $150,000 more than doubled, even as the economy fell into a deep recession during that period.
•U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that the rate of "layoffs and discharges" in the federal workforce is just one-quarter of the rate in the private sector. Only about 1 in 5,000 federal nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year.

Government workers should not be able to participate in collective bargaining. Period. End of story. Not with captive consumers of their products. This isn't rocket science. Their demands are virtually endless and there is nothing that government can do to stop them. At best, you can vote union-friendly politicians out of office. So that is a place to start - at the ballot box in November.

boortz.com



To: TimF who wrote (42841)3/13/2012 10:57:03 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
California's Greek Tragedy
No one should write off the Golden State. But it will take massive reforms to reverse its economic decline..
March 13, 2012

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN and JOHN F. COGAN
Long a harbinger of national trends and an incubator of innovation, cash-strapped California eagerly awaits a temporary revenue surge from Facebook IPO stock options and capital gains. Meanwhile, Stockton may soon become the state's largest city to go bust. Call it the agony and ecstasy of contemporary California.

California's rising standards of living and outstanding public schools and universities once attracted millions seeking upward economic mobility. But then something went radically wrong as California legislatures and governors built a welfare state on high tax rates, liberal entitlement benefits, and excessive regulation. The results, though predictable, are nonetheless striking. From the mid-1980s to 2005, California's population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000.

California's economy, which used to outperform the rest of the country, now substantially underperforms. The unemployment rate, at 10.9%, is higher than every other state except Nevada and Rhode Island. With 12% of America's population, California has one third of the nation's welfare recipients.

Partly due to generous union wages and benefits, inflexible work rules and lobbying for more spending, many state programs and institutions spend too much and achieve too little. For example, annual spending on each California prison inmate is equal to an entire middle-income family's after-tax income. Many of California's K-12 public schools rank poorly on standardized tests. The unfunded pension and retiree health-care liabilities of workers in the state-run Calpers system, which includes teachers and university personnel, totals around $250 billion.

Meanwhile, the state lurches from fiscal tragedy to fiscal farce, running deficits in good times as well as bad. The general fund's spending exceeded its tax revenues in nine of the last 10 years (the only exceptions being 2005 at the height of the housing bubble), abetted by creative accounting and temporary IOUs.

Now, the bill is coming due. After running a $5 billion deficit last year and another likely deficit this year, Gov. Jerry Brown's budget increases spending next year by $7 billion and finances the higher spending with income and sales-tax hikes. Specifically, he's proposing a November ballot initiative raising the state's top income tax rate to 12.3%, making it the nation's highest, and raising the basic state sales tax rate, already the nation's highest, to 7.75% from 7.25%.

While Mr. Brown deserves credit for some earlier spending cuts to reduce a large inherited budget shortfall, the budget fails to address long-run structural problems, counting on a cyclical economic recovery and stock bubble for a bailout until the next self-inflicted crisis. Moreover, he's thus far failed to embrace a bold reform agenda to save money, improve services, and restore confidence among the state's beleaguered taxpayers and bond holders.

The ballot initiative's $31 billion, multiyear "temporary" tax increase is larger than the "temporary" hike it replaces and its income-tax hike is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2012. Worse, it doubles down on excessive reliance on high-income taxpayers, especially their stock options and capital gains, which are taxed as ordinary income. During economic good times, it's not unusual for the state to collect one-half of all income-tax revenue from the top 1%. This extreme progressivity leads to boom-bust cycles of rapidly rising revenue followed by complete collapse. Not surprisingly, the revenue is all spent on the upswing, forcing disruptive "emergency" cutbacks on the way down.

The state's progressive tax-and-spend experiment is broken, threatening basic services, from courts and parks to education and health care for its most vulnerable citizens. Mr. Brown's tax initiative only exposes the state to an ever more dangerous roller-coaster ride.

No wonder many Silicon Valley CEOs say they won't expand in California because of high taxes and burdensome regulation. And no wonder net migration has recently reversed, with hundreds of thousands of workers and their families leaving the state in search of better opportunities.

California still ranks first in technology, agriculture and entertainment among the 50 states. But it is near the bottom in business and tax climate and state bond ratings. It's a complex picture, but at its core is the high-tax welfare state run amok.

Many Americans fear the federal fiscal train wreck will turn us into Greece. But, barring major change, they need look no further than California to see what this future portends. Relying on ever-higher taxes to fund payments to an outsized population of benefit recipients is a recipe for exporting prosperity. That is one California trend that other states emulate at their peril.

No one should write off California. It still has great strengths. And it can turn some of its short-term challenges, such as the pressures from ethnic and linguistic diversity (the state is now 37% Hispanic and 13% Asian), into long-term strengths in the global economy. But the political class must face up to the reality that services will have to be far more carefully targeted; the tax system overhauled with lower rates on a broader base of economic activity and people (almost half of all Californians pay no state income tax); and inefficient state programs reformed to spend less and produce far better outcomes.

Mr. Brown is a man of ideas, having run for president in 1992 on a bold flat-tax agenda. Instead of still more antigrowth tax hikes, he should break the grip on the state legislature of his party's special interests—public employee unions, trial lawyers, teacher unions and extreme environmentalists.

A California renaissance—building on the best reforms in budgeting and taxes, education and welfare, crime prevention and pensions by such leaders as Rudy Giuliani, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo—is still possible. What it requires is a governor with the vision, determination and political will to see it through.

Messrs. Boskin and Cogan are, respectively, professors of economics and public policy at Stanford University, where they are both senior fellows at the Hoover Institution.

online.wsj.com



To: TimF who wrote (42841)10/24/2012 12:31:56 AM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
Pension Showdown Brewing in California
October 22, 2012


The Wall Street Journal reports that San Bernardino, which filed for bankruptcy two months ago, has missed a $5.3 million payment to Calpers, the state pension fund, and is projected to miss further payments in the future. This is the first time a California city has refused to make its payments. Amid the subsequent confusion, both sides are digging in their heels:


“I don’t look at Calpers as being any different than any other creditor,” said Jim Morris, chief of staff to San Bernardino Mayor Patrick Morris.

Calpers argues that it cannot forgive or reduce a city’s pension contributions. The city of 213,000 people is effectively violating state law by stopping its pension payments, a Calpers spokesman said in an email.


Calpers, for its part, is looking to avoid a showdown with one of the state’s largest cities, but San Bernardino’s finances are in such bad shape that it may be unavoidable:


Pension officials said they would attempt to help San Bernardino get back on track, as the fund has done with other cities that fall behind. One option is to increase the amortization period of the obligations, a step that stretches out the payment period for cities.

But San Bernardino’s options may be limited. The city already amortizes its public-safety pension obligations over 30 years, the maximum allowed. Ms. Norris said it was rare for cities to become delinquent on their pension bills.


The stakes here are high for both parties. San Bernardino is desperate to save money anywhere it can, and pension contributions are among its largest costs. Calpers, meanwhile, wants to avoid setting a dangerous precedent that cities in trouble can refuse payments. There are plenty of distressed cities throughout the state, and they will be watching this showdown closely. If San Bernardino can get off without making payments, other cities will expect the same treatment, leaving Calpers with a serious crisis on its hands.

Regardless of how this shakes out, pensioners ought to brace themselves. Guarantees that pensions will be paid in full are looking shakier by the day as bankrupt cities try harder and harder to escape their obligations. Pensioners should begin to think about backup retirement plans, and soon.

blogs.the-american-interest.com



To: TimF who wrote (42841)1/9/2013 9:14:49 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Robots to the Rescue?
The flip side of an entitlements crisis is a labor shortage.
January 8, 2013, 6:45 p.m. ET

In 1999, a golfer named Payne Stewart and crew were rendered unconscious by a loss of cabin pressure and their private jet crashed when it ran out of fuel. What does this have to do with the fiscal cliff? Read on.

Even in 1999, one could puzzle over why controllers on the ground couldn't take command of a plane and bring it down safely. Technology certainly existed to make such a thing possible. Yet today we're skipping right past pilotless airliners in anticipation of self-driving cars.

Why? Because we're old. Technological innovation is less miraculous than it seems: It responds to need, and we're an aging country with more people who need help and fewer people to do the helping, including driving us around.

All this was once foreseen by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman in the 1990s, who pointed out a corollary to the giant unfunded long-term liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. Not only does an aging population mean fewer workers to pay for the oldsters' benefits. It means fewer workers to actually produce the goods and services that idle oldsters will want to consume. The corollary to an entitlement-spending crisis is, by definition, a labor shortage.

Robots are coming because robots are needed. In 2013, we can already see the appetite in the transportation sector. Aviation analyst Kit Darby figures the industry will need 65,000 new pilots in the next eight years to cover expected retirements. One reason for the millions Google GOOG -0.20%has been spending to develop a driverless car is to meet anticipated market demand from America's growing elderly population.


Or take another example, arising in Baltimore, where a local entrepreneur, following the logic of need, invested seven years and $30 million developing a robotic system for packaging prescription drugs for long-term patients in nursing homes and hospitals.

In a conversation last year, inventor Michael Bronfein told me if he'd known what it would cost him in time and money, he might never have started. How many entrepreneurs say the same? Probably all of them. But Mr. Bronfein saw a need and the power of technology to meet it, and the result was the Paxit automated medication dispensing system.

He saw workers spending hours under the old system sticking pills in monthly blister packs known as "bingo cards," a process expensive and error-prone. He saw nurses on the receiving end then spending time to pluck the pills out of blister packs and into paper cups, to create the proper daily drug regimen for each patient. (By one study, the 40 million Americans over 65 take an average of eight drugs a day.)

He saw that the bingo-card system was not just wasteful of labor. When a patient died or was moved to a new facility or had his prescription changed, a month's worth of drugs might have to be thrown out too.

He followed the economic logic that indicated that all the people involved in the old system were becoming too valuable to have their time wasted by the old system. Backed by his company, Remedi SeniorCare, Paxit—in which a robot packages, labels and dispatches a daily round of medicines for each patient—is spreading across the mid-Atlantic and Midwest and winning plaudits from medical-care providers.

Writ small here is an answer to our entitlement morass, when more of us will be living off our savings (or transfers) and fewer of us will be contributing our labor to society. Robots aren't the only solution. We will still need better incentives for younger baby boomers to save for their own retirement and depend less on Uncle Sam. We still need better incentives for Americans of all ages to supply labor rather than leaving it to someone else to be productive (which means revisiting our massive expansion of unemployment and disability subsidies over the past four years).

We need to preserve the incentive for investors to bring us the robots that will make the future bearable, rather than burying entrepreneurs in taxes in a vain attempt to seize the returns of investments before those investments are made.

None of these matters, of course, has been allowed to intrude in the empty theatrics that President Obama, primarily responsible, has ordained should be the substance of the fiscal-cliff war. But even from the perspective of the fiscal cliff, let's welcome the new year by envisioning a future that won't be so bad, where modest entitlement reform and proper incentives for robot builders will save us from the Soylent Green solution to an aging society.

Make no mistake: The alternative is not a pretty future. It's a future in which older people receive Social Security checks but still go hungry, in which Medicare is a paper entitlement because doctors and hospitals can't be found to provide services for what Medicare is willing to pay. If we weren't still in a New Year's mood, we'd say the latter future is the more likely one.

online.wsj.com