{"id":14411,"date":"2012-06-18T21:43:37","date_gmt":"2012-06-18T21:43:37","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2012-06-18T21:43:37","modified_gmt":"2012-06-18T21:43:37","slug":"next-target-state-pensions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/2012\/06\/18\/next-target-state-pensions\/","title":{"rendered":"Next Target State Pensions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On the heels of San Diego and San Jose&#8217;s vote against public employee pensions comes this article: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/print\/2012-06-17\/california-s-bad-bet-makes-jpmorgan-s-look-minor.html\">California&#8217;s Bad Bet Makes JPMorgan&#8217;s Look Minor<\/a> &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The key points were all aimed at a deal struck in 1999, at the height of the dot-com boom when California was flush with cash and Gray Davis was probably on the VP short-list.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Promising that &#8220;no increase over current employer contributions is needed for these benefit improvements,&#8221; and that the state pension fund<br \/>\n<br \/>would &#8220;remain fully funded,&#8221; the proposal, known as SB 400, claimed that enhanced pensions wouldn&#8217;t cost taxpayers &#8220;a dime&#8221; because of<br \/>\n<br \/>healthy investment returns. The proposal went on to assert that it &#8220;fully expects&#8221; the state&#8217;s pension costs to remain below $766 million a<br \/>\n<br \/>year for &#8220;at least the next decade.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The Legislature included cost projections provided by the California Public Employees&#8217; Retirement System &#8212; or Calpers &#8212; in the description<br \/>\n<br \/>of the bill and passed it with broad bipartisan support. Governor Gray Davis signed it.<\/p>\n<p>Since then, the pension system has earned only 75 percent of what it had hoped.<br \/>\n<br \/>Because the state is unconditionally on the hook, the state<br \/>\n<br \/>budget has had to make up the difference. As a result, the state has spent $27 billion on pensions, $20 billion more than Calpers projected.<\/p>\n<p>Because the boosted promises last for decades &#8212; for employees&#8217; lifetimes &#8212; and because the pension fund amortizes the difference between<br \/>\n<br \/>what it expected to earn and what it really earned during such a long period, just a small portion of the increased costs has so far been<br \/>\n<br \/>recognized. Far larger increases are in store.<\/p>\n<p>To finance the $20 billion of extra cost for pensions, the state has cut spending on services and raised taxes. As one example, spending on<br \/>\n<br \/>the University of California and California State University systems declined 18 percent from 2002 to 2012, while state spending on pensions<br \/>\n<br \/>rose 214 percent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>On top of the results in San Diego and San Jose and with a tax proposition coming in November look to hear more about the impact of SB400.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On the heels of San Diego and San Jose&#8217;s vote against public employee pensions comes this article: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/print\/2012-06-17\/california-s-bad-bet-makes-jpmorgan-s-look-minor.html\">California&#8217;s Bad Bet Makes JPMorgan&#8217;s Look Minor<\/a> &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The key points were all aimed at a deal struck in 1999, at the height of the dot-com boom when California was flush with cash and Gray Davis was probably on the VP short-list.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Promising that &#8220;no increase over current employer contributions is needed for these benefit improvements,&#8221; and that the state pension fund<br \/>\n<br \/>would &#8220;remain fully funded,&#8221; the proposal, known as SB 400, claimed that enhanced pensions wouldn&#8217;t cost taxpayers &#8220;a dime&#8221; because of<br \/>\n<br \/>healthy investment returns. The proposal went on to assert that it &#8220;fully expects&#8221; the state&#8217;s pension costs to remain below $766 million a<br \/>\n<br \/>year for &#8220;at least the next decade.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The Legislature included cost projections provided by the California Public Employees&#8217; Retirement System &#8212; or Calpers &#8212; in the description<br \/>\n<br \/>of the bill and passed it with broad bipartisan support. Governor Gray Davis signed it.<\/p>\n<p>Since then, the pension system has earned only 75 percent of what it had hoped.<br \/>\n<br \/>Because the state is unconditionally on the hook, the state<br \/>\n<br \/>budget has had to make up the difference. As a result, the state has spent $27 billion on pensions, $20 billion more than Calpers projected.<\/p>\n<p>Because the boosted promises last for decades &#8212; for employees&#8217; lifetimes &#8212; and because the pension fund amortizes the difference between<br \/>\n<br \/>what it expected to earn and what it really earned during such a long period, just a small portion of the increased costs has so far been<br \/>\n<br \/>recognized. Far larger increases are in store.<\/p>\n<p>To finance the $20 billion of extra cost for pensions, the state has cut spending on services and raised taxes. As one example, spending on<br \/>\n<br \/>the University of California and California State University systems declined 18 percent from 2002 to 2012, while state spending on pensions<br \/>\n<br \/>rose 214 percent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>On top of the results in San Diego and San Jose and with a tax proposition coming in November look to hear more about the impact of SB400.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5767,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[117],"tags":[62,123],"class_list":["post-14411","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-117","tag-62","tag-123"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Pvhz-3Kr","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14411","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5767"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14411"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14411\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14411"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14411"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14411"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}