Here’ s the latest editorial from the man who endorsed Measure K and then refused to interview me when I mounted official opposition to the bond measure. I had to post the whole thing because it’s not available online, there’s no link.
NOTE: This editorial ran in the Monday December 26 edition of the Enterprise Record, but for some reason, as of Wednesday the 28, it has still not appeared in the online edition.
NOTE-NOTE: Looks like Little picked up this editorial from the Mercury News, but failed to identify it as a pick-up in the the e-edition that I get.
So, I took the opportunity to add my own commentary.
CalPERS keeps loading public with huge debt
Chico Enterprise Record, Monday December 26, 2016
The nation’s largest pension system last week demonstrated once again that it’s willing to drive taxpayers deeper into debt to placate government worker labor unions.
Why drive the taxpayers deeper into debt? Why not demand that the workers either pay their own pensions or lower their expectations for retirement bling?
Directors of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System voted to lower their investment forecast, a move in the right direction that means employers and in many cases employees will contribute more to shore up the ailing pension plan.
Again he’s saying employers – and that’s the taxpayers – should have to pay this debt – why?
But the changes will be phased in at a glacial rate over the next eight years and CalPERS’ own numbers show they’re not nearly enough.
CalPERS has known about this pension debt problem for at least ten years, I’ve been blogging it myself for at least four years.
By its actions Wednesday, CalPERS acknowledged it has only 63.5 percent of the assets it should. That places the system’s shortfall at about $170 billion and on the backs of taxpayers. It averages more than $13,000 of debt for each California household.
The backs of the taxpayers? Why? We were never consulted when Gray Davis made this scheme, we recalled him, but we still got stuck with the deal he struck with the employees’ unions.
It’s actually worse than that. And the longer the union- dominated CalPERS board fails to comprehensively address its funding problems, the larger that debt will likely grow. Unlike upfront contributions that are shared between government employers and workers, the shortfall lands solely on taxpayers.
Why?!
Nevertheless, Gov. Jerry Brown touted the deal, which his office struck behind the scenes with labor. He said the change is “ more reflective of the financial returns (CalPERS) can expect in the future. This will make for a more sustainable system.”
More than what? Yes, it’s closer to a reasonable target than the past policy, which was completely divorced from reality, but it doesn’t come close to actually putting CalPERS on a sustainable path.
Like the governor’s muchtouted pension law changes of 2012, this CalPERS adjustment only marginally slows the bleeding. It doesn’t come close to solving the problem.
Specifically, the CalPERS board voted to lower its assumed rate of investment return from 7.5 percent to 7.375 percent in fiscal year 2017, 7.25 percent in 2018 and 7.0 percent in 2019.
That means the pension system will lower its expectation for how much interest it can earn from its assets and instead turn to government employers to kick in more.
But that increase in contribution rates for state and local governments, many of whom are likely to pass on some of the burden to workers, won’t be fully phased in until 2024.
Oh my God – he’s calling pensions of 70 – 90 percent of a worker’s highest year’s earnings a burden on the workers!
To understand how far short this move falls, consider that CalPERS announced Wednesday that it hadn’t hit a 7 percent average over the last 20 years and, going forward, it estimates that there’s only roughly a 1-in- 4 chance that it will meet that target.
And CalPERS’ consultant warns that the pension system should anticipate only an average 6.2 percent in each of the next 10 years.
CalPERS officials rationalize that state and local governments couldn’t afford higher payments that would result from lower investment forecasts.
If that’s true, the solution is to change the system, not keep denying reality.
I believe Little is talking about further raising taxes to float these pensions. That’s why he endorsed Measure K, and that’s why I believe he will back up CARD and eventually the city of Chico when they put their own tax increase measures on the ballot. He refuses to admit that these pensions are unsustainable, period, he just keeps expecting the rest of us to set up these public workers like Phay-rohs!
When are we going to get a real newspaper in this town?
NOTE: I contacted a managing editor at the San Jose Mercury Register – this piece was actually written by one of his co-workers and reprinted by permission in the ER (same owner owns both papers…)
Wow, if David Little were my watchdog, he would remind me of this guy:
Thanks Rob,
If David Little were my watchdog, I’d set him up on the back porch with a bowl of hominy grits and get me a new watchdog.