Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (23964)	8/19/2012 11:28:07 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Not the only reason; State R pols helped. So did local pols of both stripes. Pete Wilson tried to raid the retirement fund in '91. Eventually, they changed funding and plans were forced to gamble on the street, etc. It trickles down to the local level. Prop 13 changed everything, actually resulted in less local control. = But both state pension funds face gaps in funding for pension payouts now and for years to come. How this happened can be explained only in part by the bursting of the real estate bubble and the stock market crash. It can be traced back to 1984, when voters passed Proposition 21.That removed restrictions that said the pension funds had to maintain 75 percent of their investments in bonds. Suddenly, all bets were on, and the funds rode the stock market with impressive results. The surplus at CalPERS caught the attention of politicians coping with a state budget deficit. “They’ve got green eyes,” longtime board member Robert Carlson told Pensions & Investments in 2007. He was there in 1991, when then-Gov. Pete Wilson tried to raid the pension funds. Labor unions reacted by successfully backing Proposition 162, which in 1992 made beneficiaries the pension board’s priority. “Prior to that there had been a balance, where they were supposed to protect taxpayers and also supposed to protect the members,” said Ed Mendel, who developed expertise in the state’s pension funds through covering California government for nearly three decades and now reports on them in the Calpensions blog. “What Proposition 162 said was, from now on, first and foremost you protect the members.” inewsource.org