Teacher Tenure/Unions/Government/Pensions

[asmodeus]

True, Teachers' has posted a 9.2 percent annual return over the past 25 years

That's great...in fact, I would be in favor of refunding the 8.5% they've built in to the model and giving the teachers the annual 9.2% retroactively if it could be done. But going forward, they (as well as all public union employees) should be subject to the variations of the market just like the rest of us. This is such a simple concept.

[macrockett]

One of my arguments to counter the TRS claim of "stimulus" above can be clearly shown in the article in the NYT, just read the headline. Only in this case, it would be out of State, like FL or AZ or you pick one (there are 47 other states). I would go for warm weather and no humidity!:

September 4, 2010
Many High-Paid Public Workers Live Elsewhere
By ELIZABETH LESLY STEVENS

Morris Tabak, assistant chief of the San Francisco Police Department, is one of the highest-paid employees San Francisco has ever had.

Mr. Tabak earned $425,558 in 2009, according to city payroll records. After 32 years on the force, he announced his retirement this month. His annual payment from the city’s pension fund will be approximately $225,000. With that and San Francisco’s generous retiree health care package, compensation to Mr. Tabak will quickly climb into the seven figures.

But there is a hidden cost to the city beyond Mr. Tabak’s generous salary and pension benefits: Mr. Tabak owns a home, pays property taxes and, presumably, does most of his shopping in a residential community in San Mateo County, about 20 miles south of the city.

The net effect is that most of the economic activity generated by Mr. Tabak’s salary and benefits will take place outside San Francisco.

Mr. Tabak, who declined to be interviewed, is hardly alone. An analysis by The Bay Citizen of San Francisco’s payroll and employee-residency data shows that the city’s highest-paid employees tend to live outside the city limits, while the lowest-paid ones, on average, make their homes in San Francisco. According to the data, 56 percent of public employees — and three-quarters of the police officers — reside outside the city.

The data appear to contradict the common belief — asserted most recently by Mayor Gavin Newsom during a visit to The Bay Citizen newsroom — that few public employees can afford to live in notoriously expensive San Francisco.

By law, San Francisco’s public employees (though not the city’s elected officials) are free to live wherever they want. A section of the state’s Constitution bars local governments from requiring residency for public employees, though they can be required to live within a “reasonable distance.”

But the flight of so much capital — San Francisco will spend $2.6 billion this year on salaries, benefits and pension-fund contributions — adds another dimension to the city’s efforts to grapple with one of the worst budget crises in its history.

It has long been known that San Francisco’s public employees are well-paid, averaging $87,000 a year. But the data indicate that most of that income leaves the city with the evening commute. According to calculations, the net outflow this year will be $1.8 billion. Workers may buy lunch and lattes, or an occasional dinner or drinks, near the Civic Center, but the bulk of their income is spent near their homes.

“The main advantage of having employees reside within the city is that a good chunk of their personal and family spending would be localized,” said Sean Randolph, president of the nonpartisan Bay Area Council Economic Institute, a business-oriented public-policy group. A disadvantage to their living outside, Mr. Randolph said, is that those employees end up paying taxes to other communities.

The $1.8 billion outflow is certainly not the cause of the city’s budget shortfall, but it does not help. The cost of supporting these public employees is largely borne by San Francisco’s 700,000 adult residents. The $2.6 billion in employee costs does not include the city’s pension fund disbursements: $742 million to more than 23,000 beneficiaries in 2009. Nearly $500 million of that was sent to pensioners living in other cities.

Then there is another $4 billion in unfunded retiree health-care liabilities, which is “an immense number,” said Eric Hoffmann, a San Francisco-based senior vice president with Moody’s Investor Service. “San Francisco is very generous in its post-retirement benefits.”

Moody’s has a “negative outlook” on the city’s creditworthiness. If that rating is downgraded, San Francisco will pay higher interest on its debt payments, which are about $300 million this year.

The issue is not unique to San Francisco. Other municipal governments have tried over the years to devise ways to capture income from workers who do not live in the cities that employ them. These measures have taken the form of residency requirements, commuter taxes and higher payroll taxes. But these terms are not presently part of the political or economic vocabulary of the Bay Area.

“We are not hostile to people who do not live in the city,” says Tony Winnicker, spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. “Non-residents—including city workers—contribute billions to our city on an annual basis.”

That doesn’t mean that the city doesn’t see potential benefits in requiring other, private-sector employers to hire local. The mayor’s office has been working with Supervisor John Avalos, who is preparing legislation to require private contractors and developers working on city-financed construction projects in San Francisco to employ crews made up at least half by city residents.

“We are trying to make sure we are keeping money in San Francisco,” Mr. Avalos said. “When those jobs go to San Franciscans, we know the money stays in the local economy. There is a multiplier effect.”

Employees of the city and county of San Francisco earned more than the county average in all nine Bay Area counties in which they reside, the data show. In San Francisco, where the average 2008 income was $72,712, roughly 10,000 municipal employees residing within the city made an average of $83,000.

The average San Francisco city employee residing in Sonoma County made $118,000. That is about two-and-a-half times the county average per-capita income, according to 2008 United States Commerce Department data.

In Solano County, the 914 San Francisco city employees made an average of $87,000 — more than twice the county average. The nearly 5,300 San Francisco employees residing in San Mateo County earned $89,000 — 21 percent more than the county average.

As San Francisco’s budget woes mount, the city is embroiled in a fight over whether to force existing public employees, most of whom live outside the city, to make greater contributions to pay for their pensions and other benefits. (New hires already face higher contributions, thanks to a health care measure that was passed in 2008 and a pension measure passed in June 2010.)

Proposition B, the November ballot measure, would require greatly increased contributions. Its lead proponent, Jeff Adachi, the public defender, said it would save San Francisco $120 million to $170 million a year. Public-employee unions and most political leaders vehemently oppose Proposition B. No matter where they call home, city employees are upset about the toll the measure would have on their finances.

Lorraine Thiebaud, a 63-year-old trauma nurse for more than two decades at San Francisco General, personifies the complexity of the issue. She earned $128,000 last year — but she is the sole breadwinner for a family of four, and the high cost of living in the Bay Area drove her and her family far afield.

Raised in the Inner Sunset district, Ms. Thiebaud said she could not afford to live in San Francisco in the early 1980s, so she and her husband, a general contractor, settled in Berkeley. When the economy soured, Ms. Thiebaud’s husband was out of work, and they moved even farther from San Francisco to save money.

Ms. Thiebaud now commutes via Amtrak from Placer County, northeast of Sacramento, to work double night shifts at San Francisco General, while her husband stays home to look after their two school-aged daughters. Ms. Thiebaud estimates that if Proposition B passes in November, she will face $12,000 to $15,000 in increased pension and health-care contributions.

Ms. Thiebaud is working with her union to defeat Proposition B. But, in a phenomenon related to the fact that most city workers live outside San Francisco, the city’s public employees are a tiny voting bloc in San Francisco, at most 2 percent of registered voters.

So while Ms. Thiebaud’s fate is tied to the political wrangling of San Francisco, she will not vote against Proposition B. She is registered in Placer County, 125 miles away.

[e-mail]

[macrockett]

It's refreshing to have a politician who tells the truth.

www.theblaze.com/stories/nj-gov-christie-clashes-with-teacher-at-town-hall/

There are so few who do, let alone who are willing to take action to rectify the lies of the past.

If you think social security is safe and sound, or medicare and medicaid, you simply do not understand the math.

If you think you can add 32 million people to full benefits in our health care system, and SAVE money, you simply do not understand the math.

If you think the citizens of Illinois can afford to pay public union salaries, pensions of 75% of salary with cost of living increase and health care in retirement, you simply don't understand the math.

All of the above are based on flawed, at best, projections of expenses to be paid out in the future, especially medicare. Worse, they have been perpetuated by dishonest politicians. In the case of social security there is the additional fact that the program was also used to fund such unfunded mandates as SSI. The fact remains, none of these examples are based on sound math.

When you add to this a few other facts:

we will have 78 million baby boomers retiring over the next 18 years or so, a group that contributed a vast pot of cash to the system which exists nowhere but as an electronic entry on the books of the federal government,

that private sector incomes for those remaining in the system have been flat over the last decade, and will likely remain so in the future based on global competition from China, India and Indonesia, among others,

and that U.S. gdp will grow at a slower pace than in the past, for a number of reasons, reducing the projected return on investment for pension funds,

you begin to see the big picture. Forget about the debt that will exist shortly based on yearly deficits that are, in a single year, larger than all the debt accumulated from Washington to Reagan.

We have serious issues ahead of us. At the very least we should all be honest about what is true and what isn't.

[macrockett]

This is a video clip by a group whose goal is to change education in America. One of it's targets is the teachers union. Who is behind the video? Right wing zealots? No. Find out for yourself.

www.waitingforsuperman.com/

the video should start when you enter the site.

[doctorwho]

Sept 14, 2010 16:24:18 GMT -6 macrockett said:

This is a video clip by a group whose goal is to change education in America. One of it's targets is the teachers union. Who is behind the video? Right wing zealots? No. Find out for yourself.

www.waitingforsuperman.com/

the video should start when you enter the site.

very cool -- we'll see how much longer the unions can fight to keep charter schools out of Chicago

[macrockett]

SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 WSJ

Education Reform Starts With Pension Reform
Because pensions aren't portable, teachers lose big if they move or switch careers.


By WILLIAM MCGURN

This week children across the country are returning to the classroom, and with the new school year comes a renewed debate about the best way to challenge the culture of mediocrity that prevails in too many public schools.

Ask experts about the best path to reform, and you'll get different answers. Many favor the vouchers first proposed by Milton Friedman. Others believe in Ray Budde's concept of charter schools. Still others find hope in programs such as Wendy Kopps's Teach for America.

All these ideas have their merits. When it comes to shaking up the status quo, however, the most potent education reform may be the one that's too often considered a side issue: pension reform.

That's right, pension reform. Over the past 25 years, the private sector has moved from having four of five workers in a defined-benefit pension to having just one of five workers in such a plan. Mostly this means a shift to 401(k)s and the like, where payouts are related to what employees pay in.

Like most government employees, teachers have not made this shift. Their unions fight bitterly to retain the defined benefit plans underwritten by taxpayers. While these plans allow some lucky folks to retire in their 50s with a generous payout, they also feature perverse incentives that punish the young (more on this below) and encourage people to hang on for dear life even when they'd much rather leave.

In an age of state budget crises, voters are beginning to wake up to the financial price tag. In a February speech declaring a fiscal state of emergency in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie questioned the fairness of the existing arrangement:

"A retired teacher paid $62,000 towards her pension and nothing, yes nothing, for full family medical, dental and vision coverage over her entire career," said the governor. "What will we pay her? $1.4 million in pension benefits and another $215,000 in health-care benefit premiums over her lifetime. Is it 'fair' for all of us and our children to have to pay for this excess?"

His complaint was echoed in these pages recently by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. For years, he points out, his state has been increasing benefits for public pensions—while reducing contributions and resorting to various fakeries to paper over the resulting unfunded liabilities. A recent report from the Manhattan Institute puts the total unfunded liability across America at $933 billion.

As bad as these unfunded liabilities are, the focus on numbers draws attention away from the system's insidious effect on the teaching culture. Under most teacher pension plans, benefits are paid out according to a formula that multiplies years of service times a percentage of annual salary. Many plans also include cost of living adjustments, early retirement, and loopholes that allow people to jack up retirement payouts by spiking their earnings their last years.

The assumption behind this system is that retirement packages need to be plush to encourage good teachers to stay. The unintended consequences, however, may do just the opposite. Education Sector, an independent nonprofit that describes itself as challenging conventional thinking about education policy, says that this system "creates some big winners at the expense of many small losers."

Who are these losers? In a just-released report called "Better Benefits: Reforming Teacher Pensions for a Changing Work Force," the think tank suggests the losers include anyone who doesn't stay put for 30 or so years.

www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/Pensions-Report-RELEASE_0.pdf

Because their pensions are not portable, teachers lose big if they move to another school system, switch careers, or try to cash out. The report cites a 2008 survey in which nearly four out of five teachers agreed with the statement that "too many veteran teachers who are burned out stay because they do not want to walk away from the benefits and service time they have accrued."

The tragedy is that few men and women who enter teaching start out this way. Alas, the hidebound system of payouts—along with tenure and essentially free medical care—over time cultivates an apparatchik's mentality, where people wait out the system for that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The attrition rates for New York City teachers tell the story: While the city typically loses between 20%-30% of teachers in the first three years, fewer than half a percent of teachers who have 10 years or more leave.

"Our system for teachers pensions assumes lifetime employment in the same place and rewards seniority above all else," says E.J. McMahon, an expert on public pensions who directs the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy. "That's a compensation model better suited to a factory floor in the 1950s than a classroom in 2010. If we want better teachers, we need a pension system that recognizes that educating children is a lot different from tightening bolts on a Studebaker."

Write to [e-mail]

www.educationsector.org/who-we-are

[sam2]

Sept 14, 2010 21:51:17 GMT -6 macrockett said:

SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 WSJ

Education Reform Starts With Pension Reform
Because pensions aren't portable, teachers lose big if they move or switch careers.




Because their pensions are not portable, teachers lose big if they move to another school system, switch careers, or try to cash out. The report cites a 2008 survey in which nearly four out of five teachers agreed with the statement that "too many veteran teachers who are burned out stay because they do not want to walk away from the benefits and service time they have accrued."

Is this actually the case in Illinois? Specifically in 204? A few years ago, I was told this was the case, but have never been able to confirm it.

Our SB members, who should know the answer, tend to justify support for higher wages and benefits for teachers because of their concern that qualified teachers would leave the district for greener pastures.

I've been told that only a portion of a teachers service credits transfer to a new district and that tenure does not transfer. THe citation above seems to suggest that it the case, but I'd like to know exactly how a teacher with 5 years, 10 years, 15 years service would be impacted if they left our district for another, say 203.

My guess is that there are real impediments to teachers leaving the district before they retire and that the risk of defections is just a ruse to justify avoiding a painful negotiation with the teachers.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

I understand that administrators routinely "retire" and then take a new, full-time position in another district or another state, because it makes economic sense for them to do so. But what about mid career teachers?

Thanks

[asmodeus]

It's a great system...you can't fire an incompetent teacher after she acquires tenure, and even if she wanted to leave the profession, she won't for fear of losing her pension. Just another reason to switch everyone to 401(k)s and solve the entire problem.

[macrockett]

Sept 15, 2010 8:00:33 GMT -6 sam2 said:

Sept 14, 2010 21:51:17 GMT -6 macrockett said:

SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 WSJ

Education Reform Starts With Pension Reform
Because pensions aren't portable, teachers lose big if they move or switch careers.




Because their pensions are not portable, teachers lose big if they move to another school system, switch careers, or try to cash out. The report cites a 2008 survey in which nearly four out of five teachers agreed with the statement that "too many veteran teachers who are burned out stay because they do not want to walk away from the benefits and service time they have accrued."

Is this actually the case in Illinois? Specifically in 204? A few years ago, I was told this was the case, but have never been able to confirm it.

Our SB members, who should know the answer, tend to justify support for higher wages and benefits for teachers because of their concern that qualified teachers would leave the district for greener pastures.

I've been told that only a portion of a teachers service credits transfer to a new district and that tenure does not transfer. THe citation above seems to suggest that it the case, but I'd like to know exactly how a teacher with 5 years, 10 years, 15 years service would be impacted if they left our district for another, say 203.

My guess is that there are real impediments to teachers leaving the district before they retire and that the risk of defections is just a ruse to justify avoiding a painful negotiation with the teachers.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

I understand that administrators routinely "retire" and then take a new, full-time position in another district or another state, because it makes economic sense for them to do so. But what about mid career teachers?

Thanks

Sam2, Illinois law, for the most part, governs benefits paid to teachers: law.justia.com/illinois/codes/chapter9/40982.html

You can see a summary of how pension benefits are calculated for teachers in the TRS pub: trs.illinois.gov/subsections/members/pubs/memberguide/guide.pdf

Specifically, on page 24 of the TRS pub, you can see how benefits are affected by years of service in the system and age (23-28 discuss the issue more broadly).

As far as I know, each State stands on it's own. This would only be logical, imo. Therefore, if you leave one States' system and go to another your accumulation of benefits stops, assuming you never return, and new benefits start in the second state.

[macrockett]

What do health care and pensions have in common? Plaintiffs are lining up to challenge the validity of the law. See current cases: winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/PensionCases.jpg

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 WSJ

Case Tests Retirees' Pension Cuts


By AMY MERRICK

A Minnesota court on Wednesday will consider whether the state can curtail pension benefits for current retirees from state jobs, in a case that could affect struggling public pension funds nationwide.

States have responded to budget shortfalls by raising the retirement age and cutting pension benefits for new hires. Minnesota last year replaced its previous pension formula, which increased retiree benefits annually based on investment gains and inflation, with a flat 2.5% increase. This May, the state lowered that increase for some retirees and eliminated it for others, until the pension plans are 90% funded, a level that could take decades to reach.

A group of Minnesota retirees already receiving benefits under older pension formulas sued the state in May, seeking class-action status.

State courts generally have ruled that states can't reduce benefits for workers who already have retired. While a ruling allowing Minnesota's new pension formula to stand wouldn't establish a single legal precedent across the country, it could encourage other states, hit by deep budget deficits and a wave of baby-boomer retirements, to try to reduce benefits for current employees and retirees.

Cases similar to Minnesota's are pending in South Dakota and Colorado, and other states are watching the Minnesota case closely as they ponder solutions to their own pension dilemmas.

Stephen Pincus, a lawyer for retirees in the Minnesota, Colorado and South Dakota cases, said courts have ruled that benefits for current retirees can be reduced only when the employer funding the pension plans is on the brink of insolvency.

"Certainly ... [Minnesota] is not on the edge of bankruptcy," he said. "There is just not any political will to go back to citizens and say, 'We made these promises, and now we have to fulfill our obligations in total to the retirees.' "

Minnesota says retirees have no legal right to expect a specific formula of benefits. "A retiree's future benefits and rights are subject to reasonable legislative actions that are intended to preserve the fiscal integrity and stability of Minnesota's public employee pension plans," the state said in a court filing.

The shortfalls in state pension funds have been accumulating for decades, and states have skipped pension payments even in good economic times. During the market turmoil of 2008, pension funds suffered huge investment losses and have yet to fully recover.

A February report from the Pew Center on the States estimated a trillion-dollar gap between the pension, health-care and other retirement benefits promised to public employees and the money set aside to pay for them. The nonprofit research group ranked Minnesota among 15 states that needed to shore up their pension systems but were not yet "serious concerns."

Now, amid economic distress and in an election year, the cost of providing benefits to retired teachers, judges, police officers and other state workers has become a potent political issue.

In California, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he won't sign a budget until the legislature revokes an increase in its pension formula enacted 11 years ago and raises employee contributions to the pension system. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, also a Republican, on Tuesday called for raising the state retirement age and requiring workers to contribute more to their pensions. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, signed a law in April raising the retirement age for most newly hired public employees to 67—with Missouri's, the highest in the U.S.—and reducing benefits for future workers.

On Wednesday, a state court judge in St. Paul will consider Minnesota's motion for summary judgment against the retirees. Minnesota noted in its court filing that it had not reduced retirees' monthly base pay or tried to take back cost-of-living increases paid in previous years.

Richard Maus, a 71-year-old retired teacher living in Northfield, said suing the state was simply a business decision to enforce his contract.

"If a credit-card company or mortgage company had a contract with me, and I announced that I don't have as much money as I thought I would, they would be very willing to go to court to follow up," he said. Mr. Maus said he receives an annual pension of about $30,000.

The retirees said in a court filing that a person receiving an annual pension of $29,076—the average benefit in 2008 for retirees with 30 or more years of service in one of the major pension funds—would lose more than $28,000 over the next 10 years if the new law stands.

The directors of the state's three large retirement funds declined to comment on the lawsuit or didn't respond to requests for comment.

Jennifer Munt, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota council of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said the public-employee union "reluctantly" supported the pension changes "because it protected our defined-benefit pensions by taking responsible actions to stabilize the pension funds." The union believes the retirees' lawsuit is "without merit," she said.

Write to Amy Merrick at [e-mail]

[southsidesignmaker]

"The retirees said in a court filing that a person receiving an annual pension of $29,076—the average benefit in 2008 for retirees with 30 or more years of service in one of the major pension funds—would lose more than $28,000 over the next 10 years if the new law stands."

____________________________________________________________________________________


Sounds like current retirees will take a 10% +/- hit, not bad considering the tough times that are still ahead of us. Many retirees and those expecting pensions in the next decade or two will have to change lifestyle habits and live on substantially less than current projections.

Politicians have no spine to increase taxes and the taxpayer will elect officials that act on this ever increasing problem. I can only wonder when the unions will inform their membership that the party is over. Welcome to the world economy!

[macrockett]

Sept 15, 2010 11:10:58 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

"The retirees said in a court filing that a person receiving an annual pension of $29,076—the average benefit in 2008 for retirees with 30 or more years of service in one of the major pension funds—would lose more than $28,000 over the next 10 years if the new law stands."

____________________________________________________________________________________


Sounds like current retirees will take a 10% +/- hit, not bad considering the tough times that are still ahead of us. Many retirees and those expecting pensions in the next decade or two will have to change lifestyle habits and live on substantially less than current projections.

Politicians have no spine to increase taxes and the taxpayer will elect officials that act on this ever increasing problem. I can only wonder when the unions will inform their membership that the party is over. Welcome to the world economy!

I'm not worried about pensions of that size SSSM, in fact I would support it. It is pensions like this one, and as salaries rise, the $60k and up pensions that will kill us:

2009 Teacher Details

Name: Mitz, William
Salary: $176,504
Position: High School Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: Physical Education
Years Teaching: 29
Degree: Master's
School Name: Adlai E Stevenson High School
District Name: Adlai E Stevenson HSD 125

This is the retired football coach at Stevenson who will make a pension in the range of $132k per year. In 204 alone, we have many $100k per year employees.

[macrockett]

finance.yahoo.com/news/Retirement-on-Hold-American-cnbc-2085207793.html?x=0

Retirement on Hold: American Workers $6 Trillion Short (cnbc)

On Wednesday September 15, 2010, 9:10 am EDT

A new study obtained by CNBC says Americans are $6.6 trillion short of what they need to retire.

The study, conducted by Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, says savings have been squeezed by declines in stock and housing values.

The study was commissioned by Retirement USA, a coalition of organized labor and pension rights advocates that hopes to use the study to push for a more stable retirement system. The group plans to unveil the study at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday.

The $6.6 trillion figure is based on projections of retirement and income for American workers ages 32-64. The study's authors say they arrived at the amount using conservative assumptions, including a 3 percent rate of return on assets and no further cuts in pension coverage or increases in the Social Security retirement age.

"Using other assumptions, it could be much higher," said Maria Freese, Director of Government Relations and Policy for the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. For example, the study notes, if the rate of return matches the return on U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), currently 1.87 percent, the deficit balloons to $7.9 trillion.

This announcement comes on the heels of other sobering news: Milliman Inc., a Seattle-based actuarial and consulting firm, reported this week that the funded status of the 100 largest corporate defined benefit pension plans dropped by $108 billion during August 2010.

This comes amid recent reports indicating that a White House-created panel is considering proposals to cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age.

"The 'Retirement Income Deficit' should be a wake-up call to Americans everywhere," Freese said.

Cat Corrigan contributed to this story.

[doctorwho]

Sept 15, 2010 11:10:58 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

"The retirees said in a court filing that a person receiving an annual pension of $29,076—the average benefit in 2008 for retirees with 30 or more years of service in one of the major pension funds—would lose more than $28,000 over the next 10 years if the new law stands."

____________________________________________________________________________________


Sounds like current retirees will take a 10% +/- hit, not bad considering the tough times that are still ahead of us. Many retirees and those expecting pensions in the next decade or two will have to change lifestyle habits and live on substantially less than current projections.

Politicians have no spine to increase taxes and the taxpayer will elect officials that act on this ever increasing problem. I can only wonder when the unions will inform their membership that the party is over. Welcome to the world economy!

yep - they are joining 10 years late ( nut have a strong support in the White House) - my company went this route in 1999 -- they missed a whole decade of being in the real world already

funny no one had any problem telling us to wave bye bye to our poensions- hello cash fund..and the courts were just fine with that..we'll see when it comes to government workers

[macrockett]

Will some one ask one of these investment managers about the projected return on assets and whether it is realistic? Will someone just tell the truth? Hey Becky (of cnbc) will you just ask the question?

www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1592621626&play=1

Every one in Illinois, arguably the worst State in America on many counts, is being held hostage to these pension obligations that are not only unrealistic, but unfair. They are simply out of line with the average worker, even upper middle management.

Each day this is allowed to continue is another day where adequate contributions are not made by the public union members and the State. You are on the hook for the shortfall. Most likely your kids will be stuck with the bill when this blows up.

Send a letter or an email to your state representative, senator and the head of the Personnel and Pension committee along with this video like I will. Let them know that you think this is wrong. Change begins with those who are actively involved. You can bet the union will be.

Modified post to link to two more videos of Christie: lonelyconservative.com/2010/09/chris-christie-on-pension-funding-youll-thank-me-for-this-thing-called-math/

This guy does not mince words.