We all make our choices and live with the results. I’m fortunate that mine have been personally prudent and professionally satisfying over the years. Perhaps you’ll be able to make the same assessment someday.

In the meantime, it’s always possible that the world as we know it will come crashing down around us, but that’s not a high-probability event. Moody’s recalculations may or may not occur and, if they do, may or may not have the impact you predict at any significant level. I have been involved with large, complex systems long enough to know they don’t tend to change radically over a short time, and anyone serious about real changes waits to see what impact each incremental modification has before prescribing more.

Quoting … “I also have a federal pension, as does my wife.”

Wow … a family affair (all on the Taxpayers’ dime).

And PLEASE …. Public Sector workers are the epitome me of the “everyman for him self” school of economics.

I have worked with many good people who aren’t as blessed as I am, and I am certainly concerned that their financial security be maintained as promised when they exchanged their lives and labor for it.

Unlike yourself, I am not a Randian objectivist, so therefore don’t believe in the “everyman for him self” school of economics. You would probably be a much more happy and productive person if you were to abandon that chimera as well.

If so, you are the one who is delusional.

As you know, TL, governments don’t generally cease to exist, so your preferred outcome of a chapter 7 type liquidation simply won’t happen. All of the existing obligations will either be paid, or there will be some agreement between the municipality and its creditors to pay them on other terms than currently exist, neither outcome producing the punitive policies you prefer.

I’m VERY surprised that this would be their policy … essentially no cuts in payouts, and a run-down of assets to zero. Seems the WORST of options for the “actives” who will lose all of their contributions. Seems like a proportionate cutback in payouts is fairer to the actives (but when the Sh*t hits the fan, we both know that the retirees will throw the actives under the bus).

And that “difficulty in attracting …” is bogus. Offer fair “cash pay” and a Private-Sector-comparable DC Plan and they’ll get plenty of qualified workers.

Responding to your 10:07 comment … I agree that a “workout plan” may result, but it will be the most unfair of options by attempting to pass the burden even further out into the future to those who won’t even be born for decades. In reality, it will be just another example of kicking the can down the road and a failure to address the structural issue of excessive pensions. While the Bond Insurers may go along if their share of the cuts are acceptable to them (and they consider it a shared sacrifice), it will just delay the inevitable for a later day … as Plan assets will still run down to zero, just a bit slower (than with no contributions at all).

SB will have a hard time attracting or keeping any employees once it becomes clear the city can’t be relied upon to keep its contract agreements, and a defunct pension plan caused in large part by the city’s failure to make their full annual contributions for decades will lead to additional scrutiny of the elected leaders, etc. Who knows what will happen then?

I suppose it’s always possible that the city of SB will just disincorporate and transfer its responsibilities back to the county, along with all of the city’s assets.

It’s far more likely that the city would be placed into either receivership or some other form of supervision that takes actual governance out of the elected officials hands.