I’m not looking for anyone to lose their pensions, just some fairness for the taxpayers that pay for most of it ….. and I realize yours and my definitions of “fairness” differ by quite a bit.

Yours I’m sure says: “a contract is a contract” and “promises made promises kept”.

Mine says: contracts yielding greater Public Sector “total compensation” (pay + pensions + benefits) reasonable traceable to a you-scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours-relationship between the Unions and the elected representatives who approved the contracts should be honored only UP TO the level which results in EQUAL Public and Private Sector total compensation.

You and I both know it’s not going to happen.

TL – On your thinly veiled claim that I’ve somehow committed a sin of omission, I would only ask you to turn your attention to Alabama state level efforts underway to shore up the Prichard system and pay the full obligations it has to its retirees. If Prichard were to disincorporate, it’s liabilities would shift completely to the state of Alabama under their unique set of laws, so that might actually get the retirees paid earlier and more than would otherwise be the case.

In any event, Prichard was never anything more than a single glaring exception to a pension structure that has worked well for the vast majority of cities, counties, and states across our nation – in many cases for now over a century. It’s hardly the bellwether you repeatedly claim, and the circumstances of its demographics and previous financial insolvency begs the question of how it has survived so long as it is.

/
Although there are no California cases (the only cases that count in this instance) directly on point in determining whether it might be legally permissible to reduce the future retirement benefit formula for current employees, even the Little Hoover Commission and the Roseville lawyer who first wrote an opinion piece suggesting such an approach have all recognized that it would instigate a long and expensive legal fight through the courts.
=========================
So lets spend the SMALL amount of moeny it will take to get the answer we need. As for the time frame, the sooner we start litigating the issue the faster will will have an answer. Start today and it will take 2, may 3 years. So let’s get it on and over with.

My money is on the freezing of pensions for past years already worked and applying new formulas for future years not already worked.

It needs a lawful and legal answer to put it to rest-which we do not have currently.

Last-I think calTURDS faces significant amount of legal liability for claiming SB400 would not cost anything to implement. That was CLEARLY a fraudulent act and CalTRUDS needs to be sued for fraud for a coouple of reasons;

1- To reimburse all the muni’s who went with SB400 formulas based on calTURDS fraud, and

2- To serve as a deterent and to prevent CalTURDS from doing it AGAIN at a future date.

“In May, a Mobile County Circuit Court judge approved a deal between the city and many of the pensioners that will see them receive roughly a third of the benefits they were entitled to under the plan. The payout could increase in the future.”

Now, your a sharp guy, so I’m guessing you knew the payments were nowhere near the “promised” benefit.

So why did you decide to not mention that ? Is this the new you? It’s not becoming.

That’s a likely future scenario for CA (and several other states) unless swift and significant pension reductions for CURRENT employees are put in place.

Just pray the you (as a retiree) will escape payback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prichard,_Alabama

It’s a poor suburb of Mobile with a declining population, declining business, and a shrinking tax base, with a population now of about 25,000.

About the only place you could compare it to in the Wonder Dog’s world would be Stanton, CA – his hometown.

Although there are no California cases (the only cases that count in this instance) directly on point in determining whether it might be legally permissible to reduce the future retirement benefit formula for current employees, even the Little Hoover Commission and the Roseville lawyer who first wrote an opinion piece suggesting such an approach have all recognized that it would instigate a long and expensive legal fight through the courts.

The last time you suggested that local politicians attempt to reverse lawful pension obligations by just “throwing it against the wall to see what sticks,” your buddy Moorlach had his head handed to him legally, and now he’ll get to explain why it was a good idea to expose Orange County to an additional $5-$8 million in legal costs.

BTW, even Prichard is making their pension payments again. It doesn’t help your argument to keep citing that small town, primarily because it’s been in bankruptcy since the 90’s, has a “pay as you go” pension system, and operates its own pension program with a very small pool of members.

Even you can see the difference between that and CalPERs or the OCERS.

===================
There is no “controlling precedent”, that was made clear in my original post, but contract law and all cases that relate to this issue point to the fact that the current pensions can be terminated at the end of the contract and a lower, MUCH LOWER pension can replace it. TRake it to court an dget a ruling, not hard to do.

/

To the others here hanging on such a slender thread of hope, read the case(s) concerning vesting and retirement benefits in California. Paying for the obligations will no more be stopped than will payment on bond debt.

=======================
LOL, yeah, right! That is exactly what Pritchard, AL and Fatty Rizzo said! I wonder how it has worked out for those two??????????????

/
Hold your breath and stamp your little feet as much as you’d like, but you know it’s the truth.

=========================
🙂

Once you actually find a city that’s willing to throw the dice again, we’ll all eagerly await your uninformed analysis of the merits and the intent of the court.

To the others here hanging on such a slender thread of hope, read the case(s) concerning vesting and retirement benefits in California. Paying for the obligations will no more be stopped than will payment on bond debt.

As much as you fringe libertarians want to scream about violating legal contracts and imposing ex post facto laws, it simply won’t happen. California won’t default on anything either, not because we’re special, but because we are the 8th largest economy in the world and the largest state economy in the U.S. A California default would undercut the economies of 49 other states, which means there will be a California bail-out if it comes to that.

Hold your breath and stamp your little feet as much as you’d like, but you know it’s the truth.