Comments on: Rush Limbaugh on Stockton bankruptcy

By: Sean Morham

Sean Morham — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:19:41 +0000

Heard some suburban firefighters talking over the weekend. Discussing their three 12 hour day weeks with a fourth day, every fourth week. This is ridiculous. Nici gig, having more days off each week than is worked. The govt has been taken over by speical interests, such as subsidized real estate development to pass the risk to the taxpayers, as well as the intellectual turnips like the coffee shop gang. It so screwed up you have to laugh to stay sane,

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:55:45 +0000

So, Katy, is the new CWD standard for “financially sound municipalities” that they be able to service only some of their financial obligations, as long as those not being serviced are limited to debts for their accrued pension obligations? That’s an interesting business argument, to say the least.

By: Ulysses Uhaul

Ulysses Uhaul — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 18:00:30 +0000

Drink the Kool Aid. No pensions will get cut. You know your masters make all the rules. Work union, work government you will prosper!

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:35:06 +0000

Skippy – there are some financially sound municipalities in the state. But it doesn’t mean their pension debt is. Costa Mesa is in the black, but does battle with its fire fighters. There are others.

Katy

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 06:13:09 +0000

That’s the first time I’ve ever read anything from the editors of CWD to suggest that there ARE “financially sound” municipalities in California, John. Are you sure you meant to write that?

By: Douglas

Douglas — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:45:00 +0000

Stockton does not pay pensions. There is an economic distinction. Money from the general fund is invested in CalPERS. Pension payments are made from the principal and ROI.

CalPERS has plenary authority to demand the annual contributions from the city.

To see the difference, look at Prichard, Alabama, 2010. Pensions were paid out of the retirement system, which was underfunded because the city did not contribute as required. Eventually the fund ran dry, at which point the city was required by law to pay pensions directly from the cities operating fund.

THAT would be the city “paying pensions”. (Except the city didn’t have enough money, and pension payments stopped.)

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:22:16 +0000

SkippingDog: Actually, if the bond companies lose in the Stockton bankruptcy case, the bond ratings for all California municipalities (even financially sound ones) will drop, meaning the costs for all municipal financing in California will rise. Then either that will mean less money available for salaries, pensions, etc.; or it will mean cities will forego borrowing, which might be a good thing. No more funding unneeded arenas, as Stockton did.

— John Seiler

By: Brown delta trout

Brown delta trout — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:30:04 +0000

No, taxpayers pay pension annual contributions. Tax payers pay for underfunded, underperforming CalPERS investments. Tax payers don’t have the option of dumping the investment since it’s not performing to expectation. It’s a lose-lose situation for taxpayers.

By: Sean Morham

Sean Morham — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:26:22 +0000

The height of ignorance or duplicity(I pick the second) to state that a insurance loss attached to a bond in a investment fund has no effect on the portfolio. Gee, AIG’s insurance loses/insolvency situation in 2008 did not efect the stock market….didn t know that…

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:02:06 +0000

“Stockton does NOT pay pensions. It pays annual contributions to CalPERS”

An economically meaningless distinction.