Will we Finally Have a Policy Wonk for a Governor?

pensions please (4.00 / 1)

Government should be encouraging more pensions for all workers, not less from public or private sector.
If there is a problem with the public pension, it is that nobody wants to fund the extra cost when times are bad.

Not everybody has good money management skills, and I know many state workers that do not use deferred comp.

---

by: albanypark @ Mon May 24, 2010 at 22:53:02 PM UTC

If someone's too inept to save for retirement, they are too inept to work in our government (0.00 / 0)

There are many reasons pensions are a complete anachronism in the private sector. The only reason they're not anachronistic in the public sector is the misguided resistance to change among public employee unions, which is partly due to bad faith attempts st reform by usually republican, anti-union politicians.  

---

by: Roatti @ Mon May 24, 2010 at 23:04:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Private sector pensions are under siege as part of the upward redistibution (4.00 / 2)

of wealth since the Reagan revolution, which is overdue to be reversed.

---

by: Albanius @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 00:49:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except of course golden parachutes for execs, w/o regard to performance (4.00 / 2)

nt

---

by: Albanius @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:08:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's better just to increase wages (0.00 / 0)

pensions are just too inflexible and politicians promise them because the don't come due until long after those politicians' tenures are gone so there's no accountability.

---

by: Roatti @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:22:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You will find people too inept to save money fore retirement (4.00 / 1)

at all levels of both the private and public sector. Some people are not good with money, I agree that means they should not work in the comptrollers office, but disagree that they can't work in state government.  

Further, Pensions are an anachronism in the private sector because we are in a  the midst of an approximately 40 year (perhaps longer) anti-labor, anti-employee period in our capitalistic society. much of the beginning of the 20th century was spent gaining and improving the rights of workers, which included the formation of solid pension systems. The last part was spent walking back those reforms in a collusive effort by both big business and big politicians.    

---

by: shepherd @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 01:00:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's better to help the middle class by increasing wages on the front end (0.00 / 0)

it gives people more control over their lives and allows then to leave a job if they find a better one, because they don't have to worry about losing all the time they put in towards accruing their pensions.  It reduces mobility and turns state agencies into the ossified creatures they are with virtually no turnover and no new blood.

---

by: Roatti @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:34:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This response will combine your statement here and below...... (0.00 / 0)

I'm sure we can agree that most of the state workforce is older, probably within 10 or 15 years of retirement age. what happens if 1, 2, or 3 years before many of them retire the market takes a dive and the 401K plans that you desire go dramatically lower?  Do you really think that those workers will retire?  Talk about "ossified creatures"  They may have to work 2, 3, or 5 years longer at ever increasing salaries rather than getting them the heck out of the workforce where there ossification only spreads. They retire and are now paid by the 130 billion dollar pension fund, rather than directly from the budget.  

The problem with this state is systemic and it starts with the irresponsibility of the legislature and the governors past and present.  When times were good rather than contribute heavily to the pension fund they opted for pork pork and more pork. If they had done the right things at the right times they could currently be avoiding putting money in when times are bad.  

Although, I would prefer that they perhaps stop blowing money on pork as they currently still do in the extender budgets; http://www.wgrz.com/news/NFVoi...
Really, $50,000 for a dog show, 18,000 for a little league field. Talk about a bare-bones extender budget, give me a break.

---

by: shepherd @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 03:04:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When you have a 401k (0.00 / 0)

the plan can be tweaked based on the individual's needs.  Case in point, when people get to within 5 years or so of retirement, they shift all of their 401k assets into stable investments like t-bills, to prevent market volatility from wreaking havoc on their plans.  Pensions can't do that because it's one size fits all and if the whole pension went into t-bills, it wouldn't provide the growth that younger workers in the pension need.  All I'm arguing is for a more flexible system.  

---

by: Roatti @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:27:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gambling (4.00 / 1)

The sad truth is, retirement savings were massively diminished by the wealth-destruction of Wall St. gamblers.  Yes, people-- especially young people-- may have a tendency to not save... that doesn't make them "inept," it may make them, say, inclined to pay for the care of their aging parents, or inclined to put their savings into a sure-fire investment like a house hm.  might have had some bad advice there.

Our country does not have an efficient or workable safety net-- either for health care or for retirement.  401 K plans looked just great as an alternative to pensions, right up to when the Wall St. wiz crew destroyed all that wealth.  Then, lots of people were back to where they had been in the "saving for retirement" treadmill 10, 15 or even 20 years previous.

What is the flip side of "rigid"?  Dependable.  I would like a society that provides some dependable security for people in old age.  Hard to design programs that are fair to workers and taxpayers in this unfortunate and unworkable larger context.

---

by: robinia @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 13:06:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The baseline safety net is social security (0.00 / 0)

and it should be strengthened.  As if people can't save now because they have other financial obligations, they should be able to save if they get a commensurate pay raise as I am advocating.

---

by: Roatti @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 16:43:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure if the author has seen this. (4.00 / 1)

http://www.pef.org/fact_sheets...

I understand it comes from PEF, however, I have found no documentation that would refute the statements made.  Of particular note is the following:

"The costs for state employee benefits have increased because the state contributed
nothing to the pension fund from 1991 to 1995 and had a 4 percent or lower
contribution rate from 1989 to 2003. Further pressure was triggered by the recent
financial collapse caused by private sector greed and Wall Street illegalities. If the state
made pension contributions during this time period at the 8 percent rate the Wall Street
backed Citizens Budget Commission now recommends, the state's cost for state
employee benefits would not be escalating."

---

by: shepherd @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 01:05:02 AM UTC

I'm also curious as to why.......... (4.00 / 1)

the State has not tried to open  up every contract that they have for renegotiation.  They have thus far only gone after the Unions, whom opened up the contracts last year when they authorized a Tier V pension system (oddly enough the document that was signed by the governors representative and the unions authorizing the Tier V system also states that the Governor is not allowed to lay off any workers through the end of 2010, which of course they are now claiming is not legal because the governor never signed it, which I would assume would mean that  the Tier V reform was illegal as well.)

The problem with Albany and the current budget crisis is that the Governor and the other guys in the room are solely focused on the .2 billion of the budget 9.2 billion of the budget deficit.  Where the hell is the other 9 Billion coming from?  

---

by: shepherd @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 01:17:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're right (0.00 / 0)

pensions are guaranteed by the state so they're inflexible and when wall st falls, the state has the double whammy of less tax revenues and then having to make up the shortfall.  When the market goes down, everyone with 401k's has to take a hit- so should people who have pensions.

---

by: Roatti @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:32:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Switching out of Pensions (0.00 / 0)

I worked for a firm that had a pension plan and decided it was too expensive so they switched to a 401K.  You got up to a 10% match but they did not give us a pay raise because they discontinued the company paid pension so why should state workers receive an increase for this?  
Additionally, it should be manditory that people contribute up to this amount (or thereabouts) in their 401K and that would insure that they're saving for their retirement.  
I also do not want to see an end to Social Security in favor of individual retirement accounts.  Look at the way the market has been and I can tell you I lost 50% in one 401K I had when the market collapsed.  Can you imagine if this was my Social Security?
Everyone has to pitch in and help and state workers are not immune to helping to save the state too.  We've all had to tighten our belts the past 2 years and so should they.  Look, they can do this for new and future employees and those say under 50 since they have a longer time to save and keep the old system for those over 50.  

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 01:32:43 AM UTC

you do that for people under 50......... (0.00 / 0)

and as soon as the economy and job market rebound you will have a flood of employees leaving state service, because as has been pointed out in some studies and articles recently state employees on average make less money than comparable private sector employees so why would they stick around. The unions have conceded to a Tier V which will force all new employees hired after December 31, 2009 to contribute 3 percent of their salary for the entirety of their state service, just like a 401K. The state would be wise to aggressively seek the retirement of the top heavy salary structure, as the original author noted only 14% of state workers are under 35. One of the major problems with the state government bureaucracy is that there is a lack of innovation in the state that can be heavily attributed to an older work forces unwillingness to accept and encourage change.    

---

by: shepherd @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 01:49:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which is why state wages should match the private sector (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Roatti @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:36:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Policy Wonk for Governor? Hawkins not Cuomo (0.00 / 0)

When I saw the headline that we had a policy wonk running for Governor, I assumed of course you meant Howie Hawkins of the Green Party.

Third party candidates of course are routinely ignored by the media. But over the years Hawkins wealth of ideas for local, state and national government has won him the respect of the Syracuse Post Standard, which now routinely endorses him for local office. They point out that not only does he raise important issues but increasingly the solutions he put forth are adopted by the mainstream parties in Syracuse, where he lives.

You can check out his program at www.howiehawkins.org. Public power, turning the unemployment office into the employment office, proportional representation, single payer universal health care, end the war on drugs, climate change, prison industrial complex, etc.

---

by: dunleamark @ Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:50:51 AM UTC

Howie on Working Families line! (0.00 / 0)

Agreed!

With the conservative talking points coming out of Cuomo, the Working Families Party should consider endorsing Howie or another strong progressive.

---

by: ttwsglen @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 17:58:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cuomo can talk the talk... (0.00 / 0)

But will Shelly let him walk the walk?
Of course not!

---

by: hawkny @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:32:30 AM UTC

Is this a liberal blog? (4.00 / 1)

It's sad to see folks trashing public pensions on a so-called liberal blog.

What's the evidence that the pension system is bankrupting the state? From what I've seen, both pensions are fully funded and in excellent shape. If the state and local governments chip in what they should even when times are good, there isn't the slightest hint of a problem. And, as someone mentioned, what should be chipped in is about 8% of the worker's salary. That doesn't seem like an excessive amount to me.

Paying workers more and taking away their pensions is what conservatives and big wigs on Wall Street have been pushing for for decades. They've had success in the private sector. Now they're coming for teachers, cops, firefighters, and the like. It totally fits their model of selfish individualism. Now many on here are doing the right's dirty work for them.

Progressive government is about helping citizens band together to have security from the whims of the market. That's why progressives have always supported strong defined-benefit pensions. In the midst of one of the biggest financial crises in our nation's history, there's more of an argument for bolstering defined-benefit pensions--not cutting them back.

Yes, one can argue that in this day when people switch jobs several times over the course of a career, we shouldn't have pensions attached to one employer. This is a fair argument, but it needs to be addressed at the national level with the creation of a portable pension system on top of social security. Let's focus on that angle and work to improve retirement security for all Americans rather than attacking public employees, one of the last bulwarks of progressive government in the nation.

---

by: ttwsglen @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 18:08:42 PM UTC

Don't ever question that this is a liberal blog (0.00 / 0)

After all, I am arguing for pay increases to offset the pensions.  I'm liberal but I'm also realistic.  It's time to move the state into the 21st century.  

---

by: Roatti @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 18:24:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree that you're offering the "realistic" solution (4.00 / 1)

Again, that's just conservative rhetoric.

Two questions:

1) Where's the evidence that the pension system is bankrupting the state? Your contention that your solution is realistic depends on that fact and I just don't see the evidence.

2) Instead of having the state pay 8% or worker's salaries into a system where it can use greater expertise and economies of scale and guarantee a pension for its workers, why is it progressive/liberal to give that 8% in cash to workers who will then be left up to the whims of Wall Street for their retirement?

As I said, there's an argument for modernizing the retirement system for the 21st century, but that has to come from Washington. It simply can't happen in just one state. If we further weaken public pensions in New York while working for pension reform in DC, it will give the left less leverage to get a good deal for everyone in future national pension legislation.  

---

by: ttwsglen @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 18:54:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Evidence: (0.00 / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05...

As for your second point, yes, it is progressive and liberal to give public workers pay raises and allow them to have more mobility in their careers.  They don't have to invest it in wall street- they can invest it however they like.  However, the pension funds are mostly invested in wall street.  

---

by: Roatti @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 19:07:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

6 figure pensions and liberal values (4.00 / 1)

That story is about the one out of every 250 pensioners who collect a 6-figure pension from the state. It is evidence for reforms that would make it harder for people to game the system in their last years of service--something that can be easily done without hurting the 99.6% of pensioners that do not make 6 figures.

It is not evidence for eliminating the pension system entirely.

I guess we have a disagreement over fundamental liberal values.

Do you support school vouchers so parents can have more freedom to send their children to private schools?

Do you support the elimination of comprehensive health insurance and its replacement with health savings accounts that put the burden on the individual?

Do you support the elimination of Social Security and replacing it with private accounts?

Your proposal is analogous to all of the above. Conservatives want to privatize more and more of our system, especially risk. This is fine for the wealthy who can afford to weather tough times without it impacting their security. It's not fine for the other 99% of Americans. That's why liberals have always tried to find solutions to problems that involve individuals coming together into a community.

If we invest in public schools, we can do a better job of educating the greatest number of students.

With health insurance, the healthy pay a small amount of money now so the sick do not have to go bankrupt.

With Social Security--and public pensions--young workers and citizens pay a small amount of money now so that all can have a secure retirement in the future.

It's the job of the government to enhance our freedom to flourish in this life by guaranteeing us a good education, decent health care, and a secure retirement. That's what liberals and progressives believe.

Your solution--let individuals plan for retirement on their own--is a conservative one.

---

by: ttwsglen @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 20:22:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NO (0.00 / 0)

I oppose school vouchers, privatizing social security and health savings accounts.  I support spending on public education, strong social security, and a single-payer health system.  So stop questioning my fucking "liberal credentials."  Liberalism is about adapting to change, not rigidly adhering to the past.  

---

by: Roatti @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 21:31:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Easy (4.00 / 1)

I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just trying to get you and others to think about how your liberal values apply to this issue.

You say that "Liberalism is about adapting to change, not rigidly adhering to the past." This may be true to an extent, but it's about much more than that. It's about enhancing freedom and equality while times change. It's about adapting our values to new circumstances.

Giving in to the right wing demand to privatize risk is one way to adapt to change. It's not progressive or liberal, however.  

---

by: ttwsglen @ Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:24:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why is it right wing? (0.00 / 0)

The real right wing solution would be to get rid of pensions AND cut pay- in other words, reduce the total amount of compensation for workers.  I am not arguing that.  I am saying that state workers should get the same or more total compensation, just in a different form, i.e. up-front salaries.  That way we would get a more talented state workforce and it would allow mobility and new blood.  It's actually a pretty good policy idea in my opinion and I really don't appreciate being classified as a wingnut because I'm trying to float ideas that are in the best interests of all stakeholders.  

---

by: Roatti @ Thu May 27, 2010 at 17:22:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

take it from a young state worker (0.00 / 0)

I don't think it is in my best interest. One of the reasons I took this job in my late 20's is for the certainty of a steady future and retirement(neither of which I have felt over the last year with the Governor and Legislature, and from what I can tell not from who could be the next Governor).  The reason why the pension is costing the state so much right now is that in typical Albany fashion when times were great they stopped contributing or minimally contributed to the fund.  If they had not done this in the past and had just kept contributing at a steady rate this would happen.  I have seen others quote on other blogs that if the State had done things probably they would only have to average about 3% a year contribution, similar to a 401K.  I understand why you think a 401K is the answer, but I just don't agree.  

---

by: shepherd @ Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:13:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

we can agree to disagree.  But your point is exactly correct- the state overpromises on Pensions because they are long-term commitments and politicians will just pass off the costs onto their successors.  They just beg for the manipulation that you pointed out.  

---

by: Roatti @ Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 19:39:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're not a "wingnut" (0.00 / 0)

I'm not trying to demonize you or even conservatives who honestly believe that our society should tilt more towards the individual rather than community. I'm just trying to point out that your solution is a right wing one--not a radical right wing one, just a mainstream one.

What matters here isn't the size of compensation, but the nature of the pension. Is it putting all the risk and responsibility on the individual? Then, it's a conservative idea. Is it pooling risk and responsibility? Then it's a liberal one. It's fair for you to say, "Well, I'm a conservative on this point." But I can't agree with you that eliminating defined-benefit pensions is a liberal idea. And I think if you were to truly apply your values--the ones that lead you to support universal health insurance and the like--to this particular issue, you would not send public employees to an uncertain retirement. Instead, you'd be advocating ways to give everyone the retirement security that public employees have collectively bargained for.

---

by: ttwsglen @ Fri May 28, 2010 at 14:23:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But not all the risk/responsibility is on the individual necessarily (0.00 / 0)

If workers get more upfront pay, there are tons of low/no risk investments they can put their extra money in. They could invest in a credit union that the union creates.  Or they could invest in education for their children, or in a home or anything else.  The pension fund is mostly invested in Wall St and when wall st crashed, they run the risk of layoffs or pay freezes or cuts, all of which are on the table now to make up for the pension shortfall that is unbalancing the state's books.  There's risk either way.

---

by: Roatti @ Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 19:43:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And (0.00 / 0)

key line in that article:  

'In virtually every case, the officials who granted the rich pensions thought they were offering something affordable, because the cost estimates were too low."

Politicians like pensions because it allows them to defer promises until long after they leave office, thus the long-term fiscal trainwreck.  

---

by: Roatti @ Wed May 26, 2010 at 19:09:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]