Pensions killing NY

The unions have no moral or ethics. They are facilitating the bankruptcy of the country. They have an obligation to honest dealings not a corrupt bargain with criminal politicians. I was just following orders is just not good enough.

I'm a union member and a state employee ----- and have been for 12 years. And guess what? The big pensions were phased out long ago. People who have been working 12 years or fewer have 4013b's -------ain't no big pensions for new(ish) comers. The big pensions are old school and will die out as the oldest baby boomers die out .....

The unions should die out all together. They are relics from the early 20th century. Certainly government unions should be illegal. The conflicts of interest are enormous.

the corrupt ceo's and corporate drones and vultures should die out first ----- from my mouth to god's ear ....

"The unions should die out all together. They are relics from the early 20th century. Certainly government unions should be illegal. The conflicts of interest are enormous."

Please explain these "conflicts of interest".

(BTW, I belong to FOUR professional labor unions.)

You know what's an enormous "conflict of interest" in Corporate America? CEOs who are governed by directors from companies on whose boards they themselves sit.

Why is it that the union defenders constantly fall to the "two wrongs make a right" argument? That is all they can point to.

Matt, municipal unions cause a conflict because the politicians don't have the same interests as private management would to negotiate in the best interests of its customers, which in the government's case is the taxpayer. Politicians are supposed to negotiate based on the best interests of taxpayers, but instead get bought off by the unions and their political pressure.

There really is no need for a government union. And do you know who also is harmed by it- the union members who are the hardest workers and the most skilled, because they are held back with everyone else to make up for the lazy slackers. Like I said- no meritocracy there.

I was talking to my wife last night. She's a third year teacher in the South Bronx. She was railing about the lazy older teachers who need to retire or get fired. And that we need to get rid of last in, first out. lol. She sounds very similar to Bloomberg/Klein in some aspects although she doesn't like Teach for America or charter schools.
I suppose that she would know better than me how many lazy older teachers their are.

I should have said shareholders above, not customers.

:) MM. The ones who resent it the most, IMO are hardworking, dedicated teachers who see the union protect lazy old teachers. I have a close family member who is a member of a union and she sees the same. There are people who take on 5X the workload and people who haven't done a thing in years.
Having said that, obviously, we lack a systematic way of judging who is doing a good job.

I read this thread with interest and am shocked that there are some who even try to defend New York State pensions schemes. They are hugely out of pace with economic reality and are not sustainable. Current retirees should continue receiving their ppensions. However, those who are in the system should have their pension schemes change from defined benefit to defined contribution and be eligible to draw on them at the 59.5, similar to the private sector.

There are two problems with current pension system. One is that it offers too much too soon. The second one is that the taxpayers ultimately assume financial market risk for their retirement assets. In the private sector traditional 401(k) is the norm (a form of defined contribution plan). The participant contributes $$ and the employer can match (but does not have to); contributions are with pre-tax $$ and grow tax deferred. At all stages the participant chooses investment options. In retirement he/she lives off the accumulated monies. If the market declines, the state, and ultimately the taxpayer, is not responsible for making up the balance shortfall. The above (with very few exceptions) is the state of events in the private sector.

Current benefits in the pension system are out of touch with reality and should be adjusted as soon as possible.

only conflicts of interest:
corporate america and the wealthy own government
corporate america nad the basic needs of working america

walmart, our nations largest employer, a non-union shop, pays its workers an avg of 7.00/hr=14k/year--those who elect to have health insurance and paid <4$/hr ==8k/yr pre tax...say WORKING POOR...makes me proud...

unions seek to rebalance and provide representation for the working class--they are by no means perfect--but left to its own, our system of bought government, does not look out for the average person--and i havent yet accepted that the avg american worker is a lzy piece of grabage worth 8k a year

wealthy owned govt

The government unions have conflicts of interest not the private sector unions. Come on, use your brain wbottom.

"Apparently this union nonsense is going on all around the country - no wonder every state is bankrupt."

So then unions are not to blame for states going bankrupt since there are plenty of right to work states in bad shape that don't have unions.

"Clinton took office with a growing economy and left with a recession. Obama has taken Bush's bad spending policies and tripled them."

If I could punch you in the face, I would. Clinton left office in January 2001. The last recession officially started in March of 2001. Who was president in March?

"In the wealth-destruction process (see, e.g., unionized govt workers), those who didn't cause the problem (taxpayers) end up bailing out those who did (the unions). That's the difference."

That's quite funny, especially since I don't rememebr the unions getting a $700 billion bailout from Congress that was passed in the middle of the night. Now who got that $700 billion from TARP? Hmmm, let me think abiout it... oh, I know, it was those damn unionized investment bankers.. That's who got it!

The people here just hate NY Pensions since they are bitter and jealous they don't have one. Plain and simple. Well, it's not too late. Go take the test to drive a train and you too can have a pension.

Clinton unleashed Wall Street and saved the country a ton of money by redoing the CPI

The union thugs own the democratic party. The faustian bargain between the state workers and the corrupt politicians will lead all of us over the cliff. The state and federal union contracts (salary,pension, and health care) are indefensible. The leader of the regime had Andrew Stern the king of the corrupt bosses at the White House more than any other guest. Where are the private sector jobs that can sustain the public sector spending orgy?

"The union thugs own the democratic party."

And the corporate thugs own the Republican party.

Oh, and Hillary Clinton was actually the #1 guest at the WH. Nice try though.

The #1 organization that has hurt America is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Republicans don't want you to know this since the Chamber is a wholly owned subsidary of the RNC, so they defelct all of the blame to the unions.

You could punch nothing president. Aren't you tired of being wrong so often?

From Menzie Chinn:

"The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) uses a variety of economic data to determine the dates of business-cycle peaks and troughs. This task is made more difficult because many of these data series are subject to revision. For example, on November 26, 2001, the NBER announced that a recession had begun in March 2001. Since then, the four data series that the NBER used to determine the timing of the recession have been revised. The revisions to these series suggest that the recent recession began earlier than March 2001.

The four series cited by the NBER in their decision about the recent business-cycle peak were revised as follows:

Real personal income less transfers:When the NBER dated the recession, this series showed a generally steady rise throughout 2000 and early 2001. Subsequent revisions reveal that income peaked in October 2000.
Nonfarm payroll employment: The data at the time of the recession announcement showed employment growing at a substantial pace in early 2001, with 287,000 jobs added from December 2000 to its peak in March 2001. Revised data show that employment grew less than one-third of this amount in early 2001 and peaked in February 2001.
Industrial production:The original data used by the NBER showed that this series peaked in September 2000. Revised data show that this peak came even earlier, in June 2000.
Manufacturing and trade sales: Original data showed a peak in August 2000; the most recent data show a peak in June 2000.
Thus, the revised data show that the latest peak among the four series was February 2001, with some series peaking considerably earlier. Moreover, another data series, which the NBER has recently announced it will incorporate into its business-cycle dating process, also shows a peak before March 2001: monthly GDP reached a high point in February 2001, according to the most recently available estimates computed by a private economic consulting firm.

While some arbitrariness in determining the date on which a recession began is inevitable, revisions since the NBER made its decision for the most recent recession strongly suggest that the business-cycle peak was before March 2001. The median date of the peak for the five series discussed here is October 2000. Other data support the notion that economic activity had slowed sharply or even begun to decline by this point, including the stock market, business investment, and initial unemployment claims. For these reasons, the analyses throughout this chapter (including the charts that compare this recession to past recessions) use the fourth quarter of 2000 as the peak of economic activity and the start of the recession.

The unions got a $800billion + bailout from Obama's stimulus package. That money didn't go to any economic stimulus. It went to irresponsible state budgets to pass through to unions so the states wouldn't have to lay off anyone or ask for pay freezes or cuts.

As for TARP- How much went to the automakers? How much to FNMA and FHLMC to support those entities, which under direction from Congress had been guaranteeing the bad loans?

How can you blame banks for giving irresponsible loans and not also blame the people who took out the loans?

That's funny, because I specifically recall plenty of stimulus money going to states with no unions. Plus, 1/3 of the stimuls consisted of tax cuts, so it should be no surprise the stimulus failed for that reason.

"How can you blame banks for giving irresponsible loans and not also blame the people who took out the loans?"

Because none of the people who got the loans put a gun to the bank's head. They did not rob the money. The bank should have rejected them.

Which corporate thugs president? Do you mean the private industry that produces the goods and services that create the wealth to pay the taxes that allow government to function?

"Do you mean the private industry that produces the goods and services that create the wealth to pay the taxes that allow government to function?"

How does producing goods and services in China/ India create wealth in the U.S.?

Get ready for the next bail-out
http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2061/

---------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630304575270913130734270.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_PoliticsNCampaign

WASHINGTON—U.S. lawmakers are laying the groundwork for a possible federal bailout of some faltering pension plans that are jointly run by companies and unions.

The effort reflects a worrisome new problem in the nation's troubled retirement-savings system: the grim financial condition of such pension plans, known as multi-employer plans. They are common in the hotel, construction, trucking and other industries, and cover about 10 million workers, or almost one in four workers who have a private pension.

Many multi-employer plans are struggling after years of financial hits and relatively light regulation. In the past two years, almost 400 plans have announced they are in bad condition, according to lawmakers.

In response, some lawmakers are pushing a plan that would provide federal aid to a few of the ailing pension funds. But some conservatives and anti-union groups oppose the aid effort, arguing it could lead to a broader taxpayer bailout of the whole class of pensions, costing tens of billions of dollars.

president gives more twisted liberal logic. People have no responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Blame everyone else.

The stimulus didn't work because increasing debt to plow money into maintaining bloated government is bad economic policy.

"increasing debt to plow money into maintaining bloated government is bad economic policy."

So is cutting debt, a la Hoover.

It's the trouble with OPM. Nobody watches one's money like oneself. Empoyees should be able to manage their own 401-K should they choose or move it to the money manager of their choice. The Pension guarantee corporation smells a little like Fannie Mae.

That pension "bailout" bill actually has Republican support. Are you accusing the Republicans of being in bed with the unions?

'How does producing goods and services in China/ India create wealth in the U.S.?'

If you don't understand how global trade increases wealth, I suggest you read a basic macro economics textbook - actually for you I would recommend the following: http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Dummies-Sean-Flynn/dp/0764557262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275065876&sr=8-1

Also, the bailouts of GM and C, in which the administration overrode all existing bankruptcy laws to confiscate creditor assets and turn them over to the UAW, were blatantly pro-union

Finally, how can you possibly compare Andrew Stein's, president of a union, numerous visits to those of the Secretary of State - she is a member of the administration - she was appointed by the President and vetted/confirmed by the Senate, who represent the people of the US. Andrew Stein represented the members of the SEIU.

NYCMatt

'You know what's an enormous "conflict of interest" in Corporate America? CEOs who are governed by directors from companies on whose boards they themselves sit.'

absolutely - especially when some of those directors serve on the compensation committee. However, as stated numerous times above, 2 wrongs do not make a right.

"Why is it that the union defenders constantly fall to the "two wrongs make a right" argument? That is all they can point to."

Pretty much.

My 401K is down. Where's my bailout?

":) MM. The ones who resent it the most, IMO are hardworking, dedicated teachers who see the union protect lazy old teachers. I have a close family member who is a member of a union and she sees the same. There are people who take on 5X the workload and people who haven't done a thing in years. "

Exactly. That's where I've gotten the most anti-union sentiment... from union members!"

"Having said that, obviously, we lack a systematic way of judging who is doing a good job."

Well, it certainly 'aint the current system of seniority! Can't do any worse.

"Also, the bailouts of GM and C, in which the administration overrode all existing bankruptcy laws to confiscate creditor assets and turn them over to the UAW, were blatantly pro-union"

The Bush Admin. is the one that started the auto company bailouts.

> "How can you blame banks for giving irresponsible loans and not also blame the people who took out the loans?"

> Because none of the people who got the loans put a gun to the bank's head. They did not rob the money. The bank should
> have rejected them.

Uh, hello... many LIED ON THE PAPERWORK.

Youc an certainly blame the people who committed fraud!

"The union thugs own the democratic party."

> And the corporate thugs own the Republican party.

Actually, they own the democrats, too. #1 contributor to Obama... GOLDMAN SACHS!

but, again, alpo... can't you or the other pro-corruption folks come up with any better logic than TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT???

"Uh, hello... many LIED ON THE PAPERWORK."

Then the bank should have verified the information!!! If I verify the income of a prosecpective tenant, why can't Countrywide do the same? And in many cases,the LOAN OFFICEr is the one who lied on the application. The borrowers signed a blank application and the LO filled in all of he info with inflated incomes.

Do the dead-beat home owners realize they are getting bailed out by the dead-beat politicians who are afraid that if they don't we put the dead-beat banks into bankruptcy?

The #1 contributor was the Univ. of California:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Riversider
'It's the trouble with OPM. Nobody watches one's money like oneself. Empoyees should be able to manage their own 401-K should they choose or move it to the money manager of their choice.'

The 401k system is a failure, and I speak as someone who directly profits from it. It was meant to supplement pensions (similar to how 403b's currently work in the public sector), not replace them (that's why the limits are relatively low), but of course corporations couldn't stop themselves from decreasing their retirement contributions and pushing that savings to themselves. The vast majority of people are not experts in managing their own money, and truly have no desire to be that responsible. Certainly there are exceptions, but I think most people would be much better off if they never saw that money in the first place and it went directly to some type of portable pension system where actuaries determined the appropriate amount of pay necessary to set aside and guarantee some type of pension (using a formula like in the public sector - i.e. something like 60% of your final pay). It is also extremely inefficient, because if the median life expectancy of a 35 yr old today is 84 or so, that means a large pension system only need plan for 17yrs of average retirement (based on current Soc Security eligibility), while an individual must plan for living longer (the life expectancy for the 95th percentile is low 90s), so in aggregrate, in a 401k type system, we need to plan for 27yrs or so of retirement, which results in oversaving (of course the mutual fund industry loves this).

'The Bush Admin. is the one that started the auto company bailouts'

true, they did (in the period after the election but before Obama's inauguration) burn money by extending loans to the companies, however it was entirely the Obama's administration's plan which extorted money from creditors and gave it to the unions.

> The borrowers signed a blank application and the LO filled in all of he info with inflated incomes.

You are right... they signed BLANK FORMS. They're off the hook!

Moron.

"true, they did (in the period after the election but before Obama's inauguration) burn money by extending loans to the companies, however it was entirely the Obama's administration's plan which extorted money from creditors and gave it to the unions."

Exactly. The part where the unions were HANDED the company was all obama.

Unions bought and paid for him.

> The #1 contributor was the Univ. of California:

Contributions didn't end in 2008 alpo.

Either way, we just proved you wrong.

Look at the top contributors...

Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, jpmorgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley...

pretending the Republicans are the only ones that corporate america bought...

you know nothing.

Printer, Such a system would ultimately be an IOU from an insurance company. Which goes back to square one. I prefer personal responsibility. If someone doesn't feel comfortable with risk, they can buy savings bonds or treasuries.

"Oh, and Hillary Clinton was actually the #1 guest at the WH. Nice try though." Hillary works for the regime. she is not a guest. You are no brain surgeon president.

It is amazing how president needs the most simplistic things explained to him.

llc That is the problem. We are in a struggle with people who believe that the ends justifies the mean. They will lie and cheat and deceive and manipulate to achieve their objectives. Plus, their followers are not well informed or intelligent . ( And the leaders like it that way.)

Printer, Such a system would ultimately be an IOU from an insurance company. Which goes back to square one. I prefer personal responsibility. If someone doesn't feel comfortable with risk, they can buy savings bonds or treasuries.

that just magnifies the over-saving problem. as a matter of fact, it gets to another issue, which is that for individual planning, you need to become more conservative in your mix as you age, because any loss can be catastrophic. For a large system with mixed ages, that isn't an issue, so in theory the funds can always be invested more aggressively, which means less money is needed to fund retirements (not to mention you can invest in liquid assets to garner a higher return). An IOU from an insurance company isn't so bad - they are very well regulated generally speaking (I believe that in modern times no life insurance company, for instance, has ever failed to pay a death claim - AIG failed at the holding company level, not the insurance level) - you can work out an actuarily sound premium to be paid for re-insurance by the gov't.

> It is amazing how president needs the most simplistic things explained to him.

I don't understand why alpo argues anything.

He HURTS whatever cause he's far by far more than helps. Maybe he's actually a Republican who wants Democrats to look bad.

Here is a quote I agree with 101%.

"I feel very strongly about that. I said at that time that I thought Henry Paulson should not have been Treasury Secretary. I thought it was totally wrong for the former chairman of Goldman Sachs to be funneling billions of dollars from the taxpayers to Goldman Sachs."

Who said it? NEWT GINGRICH!

so congratulations Republicans, Newt just threw you guys under the bus and called the party corporate whores.

So, alpo, sounds like you have absolutely no defense for the horrible actions of the Democrats other than... "well, they did it too". And newt is right.

Difference is, Democrats have now had power for YEARS and they just as horrible as what they've been complaining about.... and possibly worse.

They're about to be thrown on their asses, as they deserve to be.

And, here you are, defending their corruption and the horrible things they've brought.

You are a lousy American.

The recession started under the Republicans. They had the White House. And the Republicans are not goign to take back control of Congress in Nove,ber. That's nothing more than a pipedream of theirs.

The new democratic slogan...

"Just as bad as the Republicans, but with higher taxes"

"Just as bad as the Republicans, but with higher taxes" Great slogan! Also "A Check in every pot" or "Cash today bankruptcy tomorrow"

To counter "Debt and Spend Republicans".

NY PROVES IT CAN PAY FOR IT ALL.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/nyregion/12pension.html?hp

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson and legislative leaders have tentatively agreed to allow the state and municipalities to borrow nearly $6 billion to help them make their required annual payments to the state pension fund.

And, in classic budgetary sleight-of-hand, they will borrow the money to make the payments to the pension fund — from the same pension fund.

As word of the plan spread, some denounced it as a shell game and a blatant effort by state leaders to avoid making difficult decisions, like cutting government spending or reducing pension benefits.

“It’s a classic Albany example of kicking the can down the road,” said Harry Wilson, the Republican candidate for comptroller, who holds an M.B.A. from Harvard.

Pension costs for the state and municipalities are soaring, a result of enhanced retirement benefits for public employees and the decline in the stock market over the past two years. And, given declines in tax revenue and larger budget shortfalls, the governments are struggling to come up with the money to make the contributions.

Under the plan, the state and municipalities would borrow the money to reduce their pension contributions for the next three years, in exchange for higher payments over the following decade. They would begin repaying what they borrowed, with interest, in 2013.

The politicians who support this, and the unions that push for it, are disgraceful.

The key to these bonds is that they will be backed by either future state tobacco tax revenue or future state income tax revenue. In other words they ultimately made an IOU from the taxpayer to the pension funds without coming righ out and saying so.

Legalize drugs, regulate them, and tax the hell out of them.

Problem solved.

Stop handing out excessive wasteful pension benefits. Problem solved.

"Stop handing out excessive wasteful pension benefits. Problem solved."

Define "wasteful." These pension beneficiaries worked for decades for reduced salaries with the promise of deferred compensation vis-a-vis a more generous pension.

Just because decades later our other spending is out of control doesn't mean the state should shirk it's obligation to live up to its end of the deal.

And just because YOU didn't work out a pension deal for yourself doesn't mean others' deals are in any way "wasteful."

It is wasteful, if the money is not there to pay for it. It's clear that the kick the can down the road mentality exists amongst our elected because unions are a powerful base and at the same time raising taxes on everyone else but the unions, would also be political suicide. How about people figure out how this gets paid for without destroying the Economy. Fact is the money for these perks just isn't there. If it was we would not be having this discussion. Nobody got out of bed deciding Unions are not deserved of their current pension deal.

"It is wasteful, if the money is not there to pay for it."

No.

That's like arguing that the rent payment is "wasteful" if there's no money in the household budget to pay for it, after you've overspent on fancy restaurants and a shopping spree at Bergdorf's.

So what part of NY State's budget represents Bergorfs. And does eliminating it pay for entitlements?

What do you mean by "entitlements"?

ok, limit yourelf to pensions.

Again, your choice of words is elitist. Pensions are not "entitlements"; they are deferred compensation for services rendered and work already performed.

A true "entitlement", however, is something given to someone who hasn't performed any work or service in exchange for it, like welfare or public housing.

ok which bergdorf expenditures are you removing from the NY State budget to pay for your non-entitlement(pension)?

Welfare and public housing.

That would work, but you are the first person EVER to compare Public Housing and Welfare expenditures with shopping at Bergdorf Goodman.

Well thank GOD someone is finally talking some sense.

In these economic times, we really can't afford to be giving money away to people who haven't worked for it.

2484 open houses!!!!!!! Whoooooot.

The New York Times reports Government Workers Cost More to Employ.

It costs about $12 more per hour to employ a state or local government worker versus a private sector employee, the Labor Department said Wednesday.

Employers spent $39.81 per hour worked for state and local government workers in the first quarter compared to $27.73 per hour for those with private industry jobs.

It costs state and local governments $3.16 per hour to pay for employees’ retirement and savings plans, compared to 96 cents for private workers.

Another $4.52 goes to health insurance for public workers, compared to $2.08 for private workers. And governments spend $3 per hour for its workers’ paid leave, compared to $1.88 for private workers.

Meanwhile, a breakout of private workers showed that it cost more to employ union workers than nonunion employees. Compensation for union workers cost $37.16 per hour compared to $26.67 for non-union workers.

Overall compensation of all civilian workers in the U.S. typically cost employers $29.71 per hour in the first quarter, compared to $29.39 per hour the same time a year ago.

Public employee compensation has come under the knife lately as strapped states and cities search for ways to cut costs and balance their budgets. In New York, for example, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he’ll freeze teacher salaries and in Memphis the highest-paid city employees are getting pay cuts.

http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/budgetFP/2009-10EnactedBudget-FINAL.pdf

its really a great time to go long NYC real estate LOL

Public Worker Benefits Understated

Public Worker benefits are tremendously understated for two reasons.

1. Guarantees - Private workers have no guarantees with their 401 K plans (assuming they have any plan at all). The cost of insuring those benefits falls on the taxpayer, not the employee.

2. Retirement Age - Public employees, especially police and fire fighters can retire after 30 years or even less, that means age 50 in some cases.

Seven states will run out of money to pay public pensions by 2020. That hasn’t stopped them from hiring new employees.

The seven are Illinois, Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, Hawaii, Louisiana and Oklahoma, according to Joshua D. Rauh of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Combined, they added 9,700 workers to both state and local government payrolls between December 2007 and April of this year, says the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Generous and bloated are the terms that have been used to describe them; critics have set up websites to pillory those government retirees who enjoy $100,000-plus annual pensions and other goodies, such as health-care benefits for themselves and their families for life.

“Are State Public Pensions Sustainable? Why the Federal Government Should Worry About State Pension Liabilities” is the title of Rauh’s recent study. It’s a provocative piece of work, especially for one of its tables, titled, “When Might State Pension Funds Run Dry?”

It seems to me that the media and the elites are trying to start a war between those who have pensions and those who do not. If the critics want a penson so badly, then they should have taken a job that offers one.

Ostrich, meet sand. Who is going to pay for public services when the budget is used up for pensioners? Sure, a contract is a contract until there isn't any money left to pay for it. I suppose we could winkle enough $ from a reduced military but globally, state pensions are a huge issue due to the contraction of the working age population and the failure to have fully funded actuarially sound schemes.

The media is on the left so no.

socialist, president, matt, ah, others. the clock be a tickin. no mo cookies in the jar, my pension be a fleetin, why couldn't this be a country a la the czars. what am i gonna do......well thats easy gonna be placin the blame on you (taxpayers). bankrupt cities and states, that gonna be the norm - no matter, as long as i gets me my checks before reform. playing the budget games work no mo' - plz help me obamie from bein po'. unions unite! power to the peeps - opsie me forgets ain't nothin left unda the sheets......

We could reduce the Pentagon budget drastically, elimiate/ reduce corporate tax breaks, elimiate all earmarks to private companies, de-privatize all govt. services, and rescind all 421a tax abatements (assuming it is possible). There you go. All pensions are now funded.

There is supposively no money for pensions, but a few years ago there was enough money to fund a new Yankee Staidum, Citi Field, and the failed Jets Stadium.

Socialist. I like the way you think.

The discussion about these incredible great pension and healthcare deals for our Public Workers (police, fire etc) has been going on for quite a while. Mainly on the West Coast since there several cities were forced to declare bankruptcy to get away from that burden - the unions of cause were not willing to give in.

States are making financial promises that they cannot possibly keep, and the bills are coming due much sooner than you think. Unless action is taken soon, the federal government will face intense pressure to bail out the affected states, at a price tag of $1 trillion or more.

One outline of a rescue plan is that the federal government should cut a deal with states. They should allow a state to issue tax-subsidized bonds for the purpose of pension funding for the next 15 years — if and only if the state government agrees to take three specific measures to stop the growth of unfunded liabilities:

1. The state must close its defined benefit plans to new employees under a “soft freeze” and agree not to start any new defined benefit plans for at least 30 years.

2. The state must annually make exactly its actuarially required contribution (ARC) left over from the existing underfunded plans; only the amount of that ARC will be subsidized.

3. The state must include its new workers Social Security, and provide them with an adequate defined contribution plan, again for at least 30 years. To this end, the federal government should start a Thrift Savings Program for state workers and operate it alongside the existing Thrift Savings Program for federal workers.

The tax subsidies for these new Pension Security Bonds would work like Build America Bonds, with the federal government paying 35% of all coupon payments directly to the state. The cost of this subsidy will be in large part offset by the gains to the Social Security system of bringing in new state workers.

This is one of many proposals and would be the best deal there is.

More drastic measures would be

Overturn pension benefits or taxing pensions in excess of $40,000 at some very steep rate

Privatizing everything in sight might also scare some sense into the unions

Initiate bankruptcy procedures except unfortunately there is no provision for states to declare bankruptcy. However, Congress could pass a law allowing it and perhaps that would scare some sense into the unions (good luck with that)

We could reduce the Pentagon budget drastically, elimiate/ reduce corporate tax breaks, elimiate all earmarks to private companies, de-privatize all govt. services, and rescind all 421a tax abatements (assuming it is possible). There you go. All pensions are now funded.

That will be needed to get just the current deficits under control - nothing left for the pension and healthcare promises

Eliminating or reducing our Military will only make things worse with regards to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. Our Friends in Europe,Poland, The Chech republic will have no choice but to align with Russia and we will see more examples of International pirating making world commerce more difficult. The left thinks a military is all about imperialism,,,it's not. Something to consider..

On the 6th May, eleven Somali pirates hijacked the Liberian-flagged Russian oil tanker, MV Moscow University, carrying 86,000 tonnes of crude oil worth $US52 million in the Gulf of Aden. The anti-submarine destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov was notified and dispatched a helicopter which disrupted the pirates while commandos on speed boats stormed the tanker. The Russians have killed all eleven pirates and have destroyed their boats according to the pirate spokesman.

There are reports, Somali pirates still hold 23 foreign ships and 384 sailors in Somalia.

The pensions are wasteful. Government workers are paid more than their private sector counterparts in salaries, and they get these excessive pensions. The pensions give incentive not to work. They give open-ended benefits that just do not work. I am not asking for a pension. I'll take care of my own retirement planning with responsible decision making regarding my finances. I'm not asking for an open-ended giveaway.

This idea to cut our military in half is just more twisted liberal logic. Do you have any clue what would happen around the world without a strong U.S. military?

The one area we should cut is in weapons programs the Armed Services do not want. Congress will push for funding of military weapons programs the Military doesn't want for no other reason than to protect jobs and gain favor with military contractors in some Congressman's or Senator's home state.

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/05/15/congressional-logic-lets-fund-planes-the-military-doesnt-want/