Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2017, 06:34 AM
 
Location: NJ
23,451 posts, read 17,121,013 times
Reputation: 17482

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
As I understand it, there is no legal provision for states to declare bankruptcy. So at some point, these states will have to do one or more of these things;

Cut expenses

Increase taxes

Stop paying creditors

Reduce employee pensions

Or, they can get Congress to pass a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy just like municipalities have done under Chapter 9.

In any event, millions of people will get screwed due to years of inept leadership in these states just like in Puerto Rico.


CA will borrow money from Mexico or MS13. alternatively they will begin to grow state sponsored weed for profit.


IL will release all its governors from prison to cut down on prison expenditure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2017, 06:46 AM
 
4,481 posts, read 2,275,477 times
Reputation: 4092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Illinois' budget crisis has become so dire that the state is in danger of entering a financial "death spiral," as a prominent ratings agency threatens to downgrade the state's credit score to "junk" status.

Doing so would increase the cost of borrowing, worsening the deficit and making it even harder for taxpayers to dig out of the hole.

“We’re in a death spiral—Illinois has the worst pension crisis in the nation and needs the boldest reforms,” Ted Dabrowski, Illinois Policy Institute’s vice president of policy, told Fox News. “There is no doubt that junk bond rating is on its way.”

Illinois in danger of entering financial 'death spiral' | Fox News
At least they admit to it. CA would never say such a thing, our supreme leaders fly the "6th largest economy" banner hard while taxing and taxing just to keep up with pensions promised to the real leaders, unions. And of course all the Ds and those with vested interest (pension receivers) keep drinking the moonbeam flavor Kool aid because tRump bad.

The fact is the math doesn't add up, something has to give at some point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,692,854 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
They can't amend it in such a way that it will impair the benefits of retired or current employees, however they can change those benefits for employees who will be hired in the future.
That's not what the governor says;

Bruce Rauner: Yes. Critically important. We have the worst unfunded pension liability in America. Our challenge is that our constitution, our state constitution has the most restrictive, protective pension language in America. No state has more protections. We basically can't touch any restructuring, like many other states have done. However, I worked on a bipartisan basis and came up with a plan that would be constitutional, that basically changes pensions for future employees, but also for current employees for future work, that could save billions of dollars, but so far the General Assembly doesn't want to do it. They don't want to upset the government unions. So far they've resisted that, but we need real pension reform.

The Budget Crisis In The Land Of Lincoln | Hoover Institution
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,692,854 times
Reputation: 9324
So, it looks like CA is just hoping the problem will go away.
------------------
Legislators in California announced a budget deal last week that spends a record $125 billion in the general fund. But most interesting isn't what's in the deal, but what isn't.

There's plenty of new spending, of course, but not so much that it outpaces the rate of inflation. There are controversial "trailer" bills that attempt to change the rules in an ongoing recall election and take away power from elected members of the Board of Equalization, the state's tax board. Missing are any attempts at serious reform of existing government programs or ways to stretch the already hefty tax dollars Californians send to Sacramento.

The budget's authors talk quite a lot about funding important priorities, especially the public-education programs that consume an awe-inspiring 43 percent of the general fund. Yet Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and the Democrat-dominated Legislature refuse to confront the main reason such programs typically are so costly and ineffective: public-sector unions.

These unions are so powerful that they stifle cost-saving reforms in every conceivable area of government – from the prison system to policing to transportation programs to the public school and college systems. Union work rules don't allow for experimentation and creativity, or even the firing of poorly performing employees. The state is thus left with just one approach: throwing more money at the problem.

This is why every year's budget kerfuffle centers on figuring out ways to come up with more money to spend in the exact same ways. The only difference this year is, because of Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature, the state now plans to spend more than ever. What else would you expect, given that the minority party has no power to thwart such efforts?

California Lawmakers Spend More, Avoid Reform - Reason.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,093,782 times
Reputation: 33927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
Again, the problem isn't just that ACCRUED benefits are untouchable, but they ruled that even UNACCRUED benefits are untouchable; in essence, all future benefits accrue the second a public-sector employee is hired and future benefits "promised" on that day are frozen in perpetuity. So now state and municipal governments can't even negotiate over future benefits that employees haven't even worked to earn yet.

Like I said before, Illinois property owners don't own their property any more, the public-sector employees do. They just let us live in their collateral properties for a fee.
Of course employers CAN negotiate for a change in benefits going forward, and they can negotiate changes in employee contribution. And they are free to offer different benefits for future employees. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...idea-will-work

And yes, accrued benefits are untouchable how would you feel if your employer decided they wanted you to return their 401k match money?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,093,782 times
Reputation: 33927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
That's not what the governor says;

Bruce Rauner: Yes. Critically important. We have the worst unfunded pension liability in America. Our challenge is that our constitution, our state constitution has the most restrictive, protective pension language in America. No state has more protections. We basically can't touch any restructuring, like many other states have done. However, I worked on a bipartisan basis and came up with a plan that would be constitutional, that basically changes pensions for future employees, but also for current employees for future work, that could save billions of dollars, but so far the General Assembly doesn't want to do it. They don't want to upset the government unions. So far they've resisted that, but we need real pension reform.

The Budget Crisis In The Land Of Lincoln | Hoover Institution
OMG I didn't say that a bargaining unit can't engage in negotiations for changes to future benefits, did I? What they can't do is unilaterally reduce benefits without negotiation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,093,782 times
Reputation: 33927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
So, it looks like CA is just hoping the problem will go away.
------------------
Legislators in California announced a budget deal last week that spends a record $125 billion in the general fund. But most interesting isn't what's in the deal, but what isn't.

There's plenty of new spending, of course, but not so much that it outpaces the rate of inflation. There are controversial "trailer" bills that attempt to change the rules in an ongoing recall election and take away power from elected members of the Board of Equalization, the state's tax board. Missing are any attempts at serious reform of existing government programs or ways to stretch the already hefty tax dollars Californians send to Sacramento.

The budget's authors talk quite a lot about funding important priorities, especially the public-education programs that consume an awe-inspiring 43 percent of the general fund. Yet Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and the Democrat-dominated Legislature refuse to confront the main reason such programs typically are so costly and ineffective: public-sector unions.

These unions are so powerful that they stifle cost-saving reforms in every conceivable area of government – from the prison system to policing to transportation programs to the public school and college systems. Union work rules don't allow for experimentation and creativity, or even the firing of poorly performing employees. The state is thus left with just one approach: throwing more money at the problem.

This is why every year's budget kerfuffle centers on figuring out ways to come up with more money to spend in the exact same ways. The only difference this year is, because of Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature, the state now plans to spend more than ever. What else would you expect, given that the minority party has no power to thwart such efforts?

California Lawmakers Spend More, Avoid Reform - Reason.com
Greenhut is an ass, he's a free market guy, ultra conservative & want's to get rid of defined benefit pensions so bad that he whines about it almost every day online.

California did pension reform in 2013, the legislation is called PEPRA you can read about it here https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/abou...-actions/pepra

Don't worry so much about California, you should concern yourself with Texas, I'm sure the folks in that forum are just waiting for you to tell them about everything that's wrong with the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 05:59 PM
 
4,481 posts, read 2,275,477 times
Reputation: 4092
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Of course employers CAN negotiate for a change in benefits going forward, and they can negotiate changes in employee contribution. And they are free to offer different benefits for future employees. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...idea-will-work

And yes, accrued benefits are untouchable how would you feel if your employer decided they wanted you to return their 401k match money?
You're attempting to muddy the water between 401k and pensions. Most companies do not offer pensions because bit is not a sustainable business model. The governments compensation structure does not represent and realistic or sustainable business model.

You didn't say it but I've seen people say "pension envy" on here to deflect from answering the question: is it fair that everyday people have to pay unrealistic compensation for government workers? (It can be argued that) the private sector works harder, pay is based on performance, exposed to market conditions (layoffs), benefits are costlier, why is your slice of the pie bigger? Nobody is envious of "your" pension, we don't want to pay it because it doesn't represent reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,093,782 times
Reputation: 33927
Quote:
Originally Posted by max210 View Post
You're attempting to muddy the water between 401k and pensions. Most companies do not offer pensions because bit is not a sustainable business model. The governments compensation structure does not represent and realistic or sustainable business model.

You didn't say it but I've seen people say "pension envy" on here to deflect from answering the question: is it fair that everyday people have to pay unrealistic compensation for government workers? (It can be argued that) the private sector works harder, pay is based on performance, exposed to market conditions (layoffs), benefits are costlier, why is your slice of the pie bigger? Nobody is envious of "your" pension, we don't want to pay it because it doesn't represent reality.
I didn't muddy anything, I compared an employer taking back a 401k match with reducing earned retirement benefits, sounds like the same thing to me.

Public employee compensation is both realistic and sustainable, it fails when employers fail to pre-fund the benefits.

If you think working in the public sector is easier, then go get as a firefighter, a police officer, or even as a police dispatcher and then come back and tell us how 'easy' it is.

And I don't care what you don't want to pay, that's of no relevance. I don't want to pay for the trillion dollar tax break being planned for the richest 400 families in the US but what I think about it is irrelevant and there is nothing I can do to stop it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 08:51 PM
 
4,481 posts, read 2,275,477 times
Reputation: 4092
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I didn't muddy anything, I compared an employer taking back a 401k match with reducing earned retirement benefits, sounds like the same thing to me.

Public employee compensation is both realistic and sustainable, it fails when employers fail to pre-fund the benefits.

If you think working in the public sector is easier, then go get as a firefighter, a police officer, or even as a police dispatcher and then come back and tell us how 'easy' it is.

And I don't care what you don't want to pay, that's of no relevance. I don't want to pay for the trillion dollar tax break being planned for the richest 400 families in the US but what I think about it is irrelevant and there is nothing I can do to stop it.
401k and pensions are two different things completely different things.

Of course it fails when it's not pre-funded because there are no funds! Such is the case in California. Moonbeam keeps borrowing and diverting monies into the pension funds. It's the topic of this discussion. CA is in a hole, the problem gets kicked down the road. Even Gray Davis regrets what he did with pensions and said it needs to be reformed.

What is so hard about being any of those things? They are jobs, people do them everyday, everywhere, it's not magic. There are harder jobs and easier jobs. I'm an engineer, I can work my equivalent job at the DWP, DOT, caltrans, and apparently make more money, with golden parachute benefits, never get laid off and rip off customers without consequences. It's just a fact that it doesn't represent reality.

It doesn't matter to me, at some point your pension check won't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Last edited by BB_210; 06-27-2017 at 09:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top