Because of math.
Yes, elections do have consequences, and they fall on the altar of public sector unions who try to purchase politicians to do their bidding.
There is just one problem: no matter how nice and promising the pension and benefits packages may be, there is no guarantee that the money will be there to pay for them.
So, what is the sad state of pensions in California, according to Dan Walters?
officials are writing new budgets and confronting rapidly rising costs of
pensions.
And the services that these public districts provide to their constituents is rapidly, rapidlly declining.
UH OH!
largely consuming revenue increases that the state’s expanding economy have
produced. For instance, a projected $1 billion increase in school districts’
teacher pension costs in 2017-18 will more than equal projected revenue gains.
EEK!
yet.”
actuarial projections and impacts of benefit increases are compelling the
systems to sharply increase mandatory “contributions” from public employers.
They don't want to invest in guns or coals, two very popular market shares.
How then do they expect to make any money? What kind of returns do they expect to get for the drastically increasing pension costs?
This progressive inanity is turning into pension insanity!
macro conditions but, as the Pew report shows, most have been much more
diligent in adjusting.
Let's look at what Wisconsin did. The liabilities hitting the Badger State were three billion dollars in 2011. Instead of raising taxes or laying off workers, Governor Scott Walker and the state legislature passed massive collective bargaining reforms, which limited the power of the public sector unions fleecing the state.
They lost, the taxpayers won, and Wisconsin has the most solvent pension system in the country.
That's small potatoes in the face of the multi-billion (now approaching trillion) dollar pension tsunami drowning the state of California.
pension issues, points out that as California was collecting just 79 percent of
what it needed in 2015, New York’s big pension fund upped its contributions to
163 percent and is 98 percent funded.
WOW! New York is actually doing a pretty decent job of funding its public sector retirees?! How did they manage to do that?
earnings, as Mendel points out, it actually hits state and local employers
relatively lightly, charging them only about two-thirds of California’s rates
as percentages of payroll.
taxpayers can expect ever-higher pension fund demands – unless something is
done to markedly reduce the cost side of the pension ledger.
which seemingly prohibits changes in public pension benefits, may not be valid,
and the state Supreme Court will have the last word.
California’s already precarious pension systems.
But will it matter?