CalPERS did not have a unfunded liability in 2008 and over the preceeding 10 years was on average 90% funded.The problem in addition to the crash fall into two catatgories.

First there were poor investments. They invested excessively in real estate portfolio and secondly some corruption in selecting investment advisors. Also there was too much infulence by State officer holders in the investment decession making process.

Next there were unsustainable benefits specifically to Public Safety members in the form of 30% per year at 30 years of service and lesser excesses for miscellaneous employees. There have been some rollbacks in recently negotated union contracts for new hires but more needs to be done.

Putting upper limits on pension benefits fails to recognize health care professionals and other with advanced technical training or very qualified senior managers. The other benefit proposals don’t just go back before the 1998-1998 round of unsustainable benefit increases but go back 40 years.

CalPERS befefits historically are paid for 90% by investments and 10% by contributions. Maybe employee contributions need to be incrreased back to the original 8% for miscellaneous and 12% for Safety members but forcing all into a 457 Plan is not a good alternative.

I hope the authors of the proposed initiative give it a little more thought because today’s outline could make things worse. CalPERS by and large has been well run and for most years absent any significant unfunded liability. It wasn’t until Gray Davis gave away the store even though CalPERS own actuaries said it wouldn’t work and we had a serious problem. The problem compounded a bit because Arnold and others did offer the appropriate oversight. The problems can be fixed.

We will tax all government pensions over 40,000 $ at 90%

The Government that gives you something is The Government that can take it away from you !

Calpers earned 7.79% over the last twenty years. If they think it is obvious that they will not be able to earn that in the next twenty years, they should lower their return on investment (ROI) assumptions and the unfunded liability estimates will go up. You have to remember that these are not concrete numbers, they are estimates, which are really informed guesses.

The ROI assumed in the Stanford study of 4.1% as in T-bills is unreasonable. Such an assumption would result in Calpers being far, far over paid. That would indeed be a waste of public funds needed for public services. Any group of grad students suggesting such an investment plan for a company would be fired on the spot. Of course, they were hired by ex-governor Arnold, so what do you expect?

The economy will turn around as it always does and all the yellow sheet muckraking editorials of the far right rags will fade into history. Until the next economic downturn. Keep those editorials in your desk drawer for another 7 to 10 years and you won’t have to write them all over again. “Save a tree!”

The last time a member of the Calpers board came up with an idea like this he was kicked off within a few days. The purpose of the board and investments is to get as large of a return as possible to keep tax inputs as low as possible. It certainly is not a forum to invest in losing businesses. There is no need to determine ethnicity and gender of investment management firms unless the proposal is to invest in losing firms to be politically correct and lose money which will raise your taxes.

They can work past age 55, and do not deserve a multiplier 35% higher than everyone else while they receive a retirement age 35% lower.

The group consists of individuals who stand to profit handsomely from pension “reform” including a political signature gathering firm, political groups, and a former state legislator turned lobbyist. Apparently their self interest is more important than the state’s fiscal interests.

Also, Ms. Walters might have more luck convincing her GOP colleagues in the Senate and Assembly support pension “reform.” Because last year, when the chips were down, many Republicans voted NO.