ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
Well, Wisconsin isn't the entire country though, is it?

The whole reason that state got so much attention is because it's so rare to attack this problem. It's certainly not happening in CA or IL or NY where states are going broke.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,075
Reaction score
3,791
The whole reason that state got so much attention is because it's so rare to attack this problem. It's certainly not happening in CA or IL or NY where states are going broke.

Look TE, I think you're much smarter than that. Do you really believe that NY, CA or IL are going broke because of civil servants? Really? These liberal states have spent themselves into oblivion.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Look TE, I think you're much smarter than that. Do you really believe that NY, CA or IL are going broke because of civil servants? Really? These liberal states have spent themselves into oblivion.
What is the payment of government employees' salaries and pensions, if not "spending?"
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
You're saying the "liberal states" are going broke because of spending. This is an example of that. It's not a distinction, like you seem to be advocating.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Special Report: How a vicious circle of self-interest sank a California city

When this sun-drenched exurb east of Los Angeles filed for bankruptcy protection in August, the city attorney suggested fraudulent accounting was the root of the problem.

The mayor blamed a dysfunctional city council and greedy police and fire unions. The unions blamed the mayor. Even now, there is little agreement on how the city got into this crisis or how it can extricate itself.

"It's total political chaos," said John Husing, a former San Bernardino resident and regional economist. "There is no solution. They'll never fix anything."

Yet on close examination, the city's decades-long journey from prosperous, middle-class community to bankrupt, crime-ridden, foreclosure-blighted basket case is straightforward — and alarmingly similar to the path traveled by many municipalities around America's largest state. San Bernardino succumbed to a vicious circle of self-interests among city workers, local politicians and state pension overseers.

Little by little, over many years, the salaries and retirement benefits of San Bernardino's city workers — and especially its police and firemen — grew richer and richer, even as the city lost its major employers and gradually got poorer and poorer.

Unions poured money into city council elections, and the city council poured money into union pay and pensions. The California Public Employees' Retirement System (Calpers), which manages pension plans for San Bernardino and many other cities, encouraged ever-sweeter benefits. Investment bankers sold clever bond deals to pay for them. Meanwhile, state law made it impossible to raise local property taxes and difficult to boost any other kind.

No single deal or decision involving benefits and wages over the years killed the city. But cumulatively, they built a pension-fueled financial time-bomb that finally exploded.

In bankrupt San Bernardino, a third of the city's 210,000 people live below the poverty line, making it the poorest city of its size in California. But a police lieutenant can retire in his 50s and take home $230,000 in one-time payouts on his last day, before settling in with a guaranteed $128,000-a-year pension. Forty-six retired city employees receive over $100,000 a year in pensions.

Almost 75 percent of the city's general fund is now spent solely on the police and fire departments, according to a Reuters analysis of city bankruptcy documents - most of that on wages and pension costs.

IN THE DARK

San Bernardino's biggest creditor, by far, is Calpers, the public-employee pension fund. The city says it owes Calpers $143 million; using a different calculation, Calpers says the city would have to pay $320 million if it left the plan immediately.

Second on the city's list of creditors are holders of $46 million worth of pension bonds - money borrowed in 2005 to pay off Calpers. The total pension-related debts are more than double the $92 million owed to the city's next 18 largest creditors combined.

Complicating matters were obscure budgeting procedures that left residents in the dark. The word "pension" doesn't appear once in the most recent 642-page budget, and retiree costs are buried in detailed departmental line items.

"I've been asking for years for the pension costs," said Tobin Brinker, a former council member and pension-reform advocate, who lost his seat last year to a challenger backed by nearly $100,000 in contributions from the fire and police unions. "I still don't know the number."

James Penman, the longtime city attorney who critics say is closely aligned with the unions, alleged during a council meeting this summer that 13 of the past 16 city budgets had been falsified. He has refused to elaborate on that accusation since, but told Reuters that he hasn't retracted it, either.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an informal inquiry into the San Bernardino situation because of the city's bond obligations. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has provided funds to the city in the past, says it is conducting a routine periodic audit of the city's books that began before the bankruptcy.

No regulatory or law-enforcement agency has announced any criminal probe. Recently hired city finance officers do say they have found evidence of terrible accounting and record-keeping.

But unlike in the small Southern California cities of Bell, where eight city officials face trial on allegations that they stole from the public, and Vernon, where three officials have been convicted of corruption, San Bernardino's problems appear to be mainly the result of back-scratching on an epic scale.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-bernardino-bankrupt-idUSBRE8AC0HP20121113
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,075
Reaction score
3,791
You're saying the "liberal states" are going broke because of spending. This is an example of that. It's not a distinction, like you seem to be advocating.

I haven't been advocating a distinction. At some point, these things are necessary expenditures (ie: public safety, teachers, firefighters, etc). What I have stated is that in today's economic climate, the continued increase in salaries and benefits needs to be looked at and there can be a middle ground. Some salaries and pay increases have been frozen in some public sectors, as they should be.
 
Last edited:

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
What's wrong with just getting a paycheck and having the employees set aside money for medical and retirement? We need to get completely away from these unfunded liabilities. Say the job pays $80k. They take the $60k left after taxes and spend it anyway they want. If they want insurance they can buy it. If they want to fund their own retirement, that is up to them, but to guarantee benefits after they are no longer an employee is just dumb.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
How in the world are you not getting that pensions are at least partially funded by the employees' own money? What is wrong with someone who has worked their whole life for a company/agency getting what they signed on for, and bargained for, and put their own money into?

Answer? There's nothing wrong with it, you're just parroting fox news hate.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,075
Reaction score
3,791
What's wrong with just getting a paycheck and having the employees set aside money for medical and retirement?

How in the world are you not getting that pensions are at least partially funded by the employees' own money?

It just doesn't sink in. It may not be the case across the board and not all pension plans are the same, but it certainly is in many cases.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
I worked for the city for like 6 months before I moved to CA.

The interview process was hell. They had 60 applicants for one job. They called in 20 who they thought were qualified and had them take a test. Only three of us passed it.

For the most part, government jobs (especially locally) pay much less than working in the public sector. The trade off is more time off, holidays and benefits. My pension from the state of MD (which I cashed out when I left, it was small) was almost entirely my own money.

Somehow this is what they choose to rant about.
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
Did they pack your bags before you left? I would have. Get you the fuck out of this great state.
 

MetalHead

In the Rotation
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
I worked for the city for like 6 months before I moved to CA.

The interview process was hell. They had 60 applicants for one job. They called in 20 who they thought were qualified and had them take a test. Only three of us passed it.

For the most part, government jobs (especially locally) pay much less than working in the public sector. The trade off is more time off, holidays and benefits. My pension from the state of MD (which I cashed out when I left, it was small) was almost entirely my own money.

Somehow this is what they choose to rant about.

If you made it to the final 3,what were they looking for in their search?...lack of logic?
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
I haven't been advocating a distinction. At some point, these things are necessary expenditures (ie: public safety, teachers, firefighters, etc). What I have stated is that in today's economic climate, the continued increase in salaries and benefits needs to be looked at and there can be a middle ground. Some salaries and pay increases have been frozen in some public sectors, as they should be.
That's not what this says at all.

Look TE, I think you're much smarter than that. Do you really believe that NY, CA or IL are going broke because of civil servants? Really? These liberal states have spent themselves into oblivion.
It's clear you're trying to make a distinction between the payment of civil servants and spending.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,075
Reaction score
3,791
It's clear you're trying to make a distinction between the payment of civil servants and spending.

I've had multiple posts in this thread and I think I've stated pretty clearly where I stand on the subject. Civil servants, whether you agree with them or not, are necessary to the function of government; it's a necessary expense. Have some unions and pension plans gone way off the reservation? You bet. But some folks here are misinformed which prompted me to comment.

Now, if you want to cherry pick and put your own spin on what I've stated in multiple posts, have at it. If you disagree, then say so but I'm really not sure what your point is.
 
Top Bottom