Rebane's Ruminations
July 2012
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Well folks, Scranton’s bankruptcy may have been the cognitive tipping point for the nation, but because of the lamestream cover-up we can’t be certain.  Following yesterday’s announcement by San Bernardino, the Pennsylvania city is now the 12th municipality filing Chapter 9, with 27 more jurisdictions standing in line to be next.  And the cause of these financial calamities is the same – paying for public service pensions has broken the back of every one of them.

JustSayNORR has reported on and predicted this trail of tears for the last five years when Mike McDaniel and I co-authored an SESF position paper alerting Nevada County to the problem and putting it into a national context.  The Board of Supervisors gave us a polite listen and then dismissed the matter with a papered over version that everything was going well behind the curtain.  Now we know that our unfunded pension liabilities are over $119M, and that is computed with a la-la land discount rate.  During the entire time the local leftie chorus has denied that public service pensions would cause any fiscal failures, and that its reporting was all a rightwing scare tactic in their overall policy promoting the ideas of fiscal responsibility and smaller government.  Where are those useful idiots now?

Before returning to how to handle these national disasters, let’s take a look at America’s tax situation.  Obama, in his eternal avoidance of his track record on the economy, is now shifting focus to tax fairness.  In his opening round, he has thrown out a placebo by urging Congress to exempt households earning less than $250K from the planned ‘Taxmageddon’ scheduled to hit next January.  And he’s going to exempt them for a full year – my, my! – before he shoves it to them in 2014.  BTW, don’t think he’s exempting them from all the other tax increases that will be popping out like corks out of champagne bottles next New Year’s Day.  What a guy!

Obama’s big message of the week has been ‘tax fairness’, and that the ‘rich’ are still not paying their fair share.  So what are the so-called rich paying now, and what should they pay?  Look at the table below.

TaxFairness


This is a tax participation schedule that is more ‘progressive’ than most of Europe.  Progressives have no answer for what should be the maximum tax rate for Americans; their solution is to keep raising taxes for as long as necessary to pay for all the government that malignant socialism requires.  The American people on the other hand have repeatedly told us that the max tax rate should be 30% or lower.  Obama’s nostrums for driving off the coming tax cliff are significantly higher.  And that sumbich is telling people that he’s going to get us out of Depression2 and the economy moving again by hitting the country with its biggest tax increase in history.

In the meantime there are mass movements of people and businesses scurrying from state to state seeking environments where government intrusion and the cost of tribute is less.  Over the last decade California’s insane economics and eco-nazism have driven over four million of its productive citizens to friendlier financial climes.  All this energy and creativity wasted on attempting to escape government instead of productively creating the wealth the country needs.

So how should we respond to the pension plague that is promising to swallow everything that we have worked for?  My outlandish proposal has centered on the notion of ‘Just say NO!’.  Simply refuse to contribute one more penny that is needed for current government services to the futile effort of trying to make up the impossible unfunded liabilities sums.  We will first pay for the sheriff and fill the potholes, and then distribute pro rata to the pension funds what is left over.

I believe it will take just one jurisdiction, say, Nevada County to refuse to sacrifice tax revenues required for current needs.  If it is done with openness and honesty, the infection of rational courage would catch on and spread across the country like a wildfire.

The basis for ‘Just say NO!’ is simple.  The existing pension obligations are a legacy of corruption from the collusion of previous elected boards, councils, panels, …who negotiated with public service unions in an atmosphere of calculated concessions from the public welfare.  The people were misrepresented by their electeds when such blatantly insane contracts for public service employees were negotiated.  Prudent accountancy would have shown that there was no way that future tax revenues augmenting reasonable pension fund management would ever have provided the portfolio amounts required to pay off the lavish retirement benefits which the unions extracted and the politicians conceded.  These contracts were simply not negotiated in good faith for the benefit of the taxpayers who were bamboozled at every step along the way.

The negotiating politicians knew that they would be long gone when the piper had to be paid.  And in the meantime, ponying up to the unions got them the necessary campaign support and easy working conditions while they were in office.  Well, now the time has run out, and the remaining alternatives are bleak.  So bleak that they don’t include the ability for any semblance of funding the unfunded.  In Nevada County we don’t even know how much we are liable for and when.  All we know is that the sum ranges way upwards of $119M, because that figure was computed with laughable discount rates.  Applying the Pelosi Principle here – we’ll know we’ve gone off the fiscal cliff after we are in freefall.

So given this history of collusion, perfidy, and corruption, our sitting politicians (assuming they are clean) have no better plan forward that declaring that they will ‘Just say NO!’.  And dear reader, I invite you to consider what any reasonable counter to such a principled stand will be.  Will the governor send in the National Guard to confiscate the county’s snowplows, or board up the Rood Center and put it up for sale, or … .  Not if the county’s citizens strap on their cojones and gather en masse to defend what is ours, and that which will not be taken from us through legal machinations seeking to enforce and perpetuate a legacy of corruption.

And seeing that stand-off on the six o’clock news, what will happen when the next county in similar dire straits responds the same way?  And then the next, and the next, …?

[17jul12 update]  The Volker panel called the State Budget Crisis Task Force has just published its report.  Its main conclusion is that “the gap between entitlement costs and state revenues available to pay for them have become unsustainable”.  And that which cannot be sustained will not be sustained.  More here.

Posted in , , , ,

117 responses to “The Great Pension Heist is Discovered (updated 17jul12)”

  1. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1027am – given your proffered propensity for local control, then why would you not vote for the Republicans (even with all their warts) who outshine the Democrats on every facet that promotes local control? It is ever the collectivists who militate for control to recede ever higher and distant from local jurisdictions. There must be something more to your delightfully straightforward desires here.

    Like

  2. Gregory Avatar

    “If I were a person of color I wouldn’t trust local and state governments to secure my rights or tend to my needs.”
    I must be a person of color. Dark Beige?
    Ben, the problem with trusting state and local governments to secure your rights and tend to your needs is that that can’t be trusted with your rights and will tend to their own needs, not yours.

    Like

  3. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Greg, the reason Fascism has been traditionally associated with the reactionary Right, is due to its aggressive(like, we’re gonna kill you damn commie) opposition to left wing movements. The examples from our most recent European history pretty much demonstrate that: Spain (Franco) and Germany (I will not evoke his name) immediately come to mind. Italian Fascism gets an out largely due to their incompetent, yet stylish incarnation of it.
    If you have some revisionary points you’d like to express, as a GenXer, I’d be happy to entertain those. I tend to think of things of up and down: power and no power rather than Left/Right policy statements. Politics is an expression of power of the State over the Individual, as an example. So I’m generally suspicious of Left/Right categorizations although they’re useful occasionally.
    Hi Ben.
    Consensus doesn’t play well. It’s just better to disagree and name-call. BTW, I disagree with George’s linking Obama to Lenin. About the only thing they share in common is political savvy.

    If I were a person of color I wouldn’t trust local and state governments to secure my rights or tend to my needs.
    I don’t trust the government at all for anything. I am suspicious of just about everything it does. Or to put it another way, I keep my eye on what they’re doing to the best of my ability. But you’re right, minorities should be even more suspicious. Case in point: 14th Amendment passes. Women still can’t vote.
    In the meantime, Democrats seem happy with their great McDonald’s PPACA compromise. They won! F’ing morons. When you dance with the devil…

    Like

  4. George Rebane Avatar

    RyanM 1156am – that “reactionary Right” = fascism is a much-circled barn in these pages over the last five years. The Left seeks a symmetrical totalitarian bookend to their inevitable extreme version of collectivism. The reason that does not stick is that fascism does not honor the tenets of the Bastiat Triangle (q.v.), therefore attributing fascist qualities to conservative/libertarian Americans (and readers of RR) is a very smelly red herring. Fascism is just another variation of collectivism, and the sought for symmetry is broken.

    Like

  5. Ryan Mount Avatar

    George, Classical Liberalism avoids many of the pitfalls of totalitarian thinking.
    [Real] American Conservationism is classically liberal and shares nothing with totalitarian thinking of say traditional Communism or Fascism both which have collectivist elements, to use your term.

    Like

  6. George Rebane Avatar

    RyanM 1212pm – have you not perceived your stated maxim to be one of perennially repeated ground truths promoted on RR, or is this a recent discovery?
    The only exception I would take is your use of “many”; which pitfall of totalitarian thinking does classical liberalism NOT avoid?

    Like

  7. Ryan Mount Avatar

    I am affirming your assertion about RR, good George. As a GenXer however, I am unwilling to work with absolutes. Classical Liberalism is not perfect, which is why I hedged my comment with the word “many.” Perhaps “most” would have been a better word choice.
    Peace.

    Like

  8. George Rebane Avatar

    RyanM 1229pm – wasn’t trying to be too picky or prickly, but just expressing honest interest. My ideology is constantly under critical observation, and therefore, always a work-in-process as I learn. I have yet to identify any tenet of classical liberalism (e.g. as from Bastiat’s ‘The Law’) that I’m willing to reject, as I readily do of the libertarian tenet on foreign policy – hence calling myself a conservetarian.
    So pray, please let us know of any imperfections that come to mind in order that we may patch and repair, and wind up with a more perfect ideology (i.e. structured belief system).

    Like

  9. Gregory Avatar

    “Greg, the reason Fascism has been traditionally associated with the reactionary Right, is due to its aggressive(like, we’re gonna kill you damn commie) opposition to left wing movements.”
    I’m sorry, but that’s about the silliest thing I’ve read in this thread; in short, the Reactionaries made you do it. You might be helped by reading the Wiki entry for a better starting perspective.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Conservatism
    It should also be mentioned that George’s “conservatarian” strain and my purer (nudge, nudge, wink wink) classic liberalism belongs in the next heading,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Liberalism
    Which is even more anti-fascist.
    The problem, Ryan, is that you’re stuck with a simplistic political model that needs socialism and fascism to be polar opposites. They aren’t.

    Like

  10. Gregory Avatar

    “George, Classical Liberalism avoids many of the pitfalls of totalitarian thinking.” Ryan 1229
    It never ends.
    Classical liberalism completely avoids the “pitfalls of totalitarian thinking” by being its polar opposite.

    Like

  11. Ben Emery Avatar

    George,
    Republican Party rhetoric vs Republican Party actions are two completely different things. The same goes for the Democratic Party. I posted a link before that links over ninety percent of our federal debt to republican administrations over the last three decades. That debt was on the back of huge expansion of the federal government while drastically reducing the civil liberties of the average citizen. The democratic party/ Obama record on civil liberties are just as abysmal. What the democrats have done is move towards third way policies that please big business on the economic front but then try to implement and promote very poorly executed social programs from DC to try and make up for their abandonment of the American worker. What has happened is that both big two party’s go to the same trough for their funding so we get very similar big government= big profits for big business. The Bail Outs, private prison industry and drug laws, farm subsides, increased defense budgets, ect… instead of actually reforming the real laws that affect our lives. They must do this if they want to keep that funding, this is why I am such a big proponent of publicly financed campaigns and getting ALL special interests (including unions and trial lawyers) out of our political party’s/ government. The other essential thing would be to put a huge window (5 years minimum) where legislators and lobbyists cannot not be swinging back and forth between public and private sectors.
    Betting on both Party’s
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php
    Revolving Door and Influence of Lobbyists
    http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/index.php

    Like

  12. George Rebane Avatar

    Gregory 142pm – Agreed, that’s what I attempted to convey in my pointed question to RyanM.
    BenE 144pm – Where we then might find some common ground is in not feeding the beast. Keep the federal government on a minimalist diet of money, and therefore power to meddle in our internal affairs. When that power is reduced, so are the opportunities for corporate/union/government corruption.
    That also would devolve power, as intended, back to the states and local jurisdictions for which you have indicated support.

    Like

  13. Ben Emery Avatar

    George,
    I know this is where Barry P and I go round and round. If government would represent the interests of the people instead of special interests the need for many of the programs would diminish greatly thus reducing the size and scope of the federal government. If we would get rid of the big money special interest funding political party’s (with power) and candidates those return favors also known as earmarks go away. Many of the programs in place could be done by the state and local government who could allocate the funding in a much more direct fashion. If we could get this in place I truly believe more people would have more of a stake in the policies and would be more of a participant than a spectator. I am sure there are programs I believe are essential that you do not but also believe there are many we could agree on. May dream for America is one day we could honestly debate the merits of each policy without the thousand layers of bs getting in the way.
    I will end with a Utah Phillips quote
    “There are too many people doing too many good things for me to afford the luxury of being pessimistic.”

    Like

  14. Gregory Avatar

    “As a GenXer however, I am unwilling to work with absolutes. Classical Liberalism is not perfect, which is why I hedged my comment with the word “many.” Perhaps “most” would have been a better word choice.” Ryan, 12:29
    First, you don’t speak for “GenXer”s, you speak for yourself, and I have no doubt I could round up a few GenXers who are perfectly willing and able to speak in absolutes.
    Second, what is “perfect” in this case? How about towards perfection being a direction, rather than an absolute? Here’s the intro to a document written by a bunch of rabid classic liberals after they finished kicking their occupiers out of the country:
    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
    Classic liberalism is weak compared to systems with less liberty because the folks with the best ideas can have a hard time getting everyone to cooperate, but strong because the folks with the worst ideas are similarly hobbled.

    Like

  15. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Thanks Greg. You’re right.

    Like

  16. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 213pm – I believe you are right in our ability to fashion a spectrum of needed public services delivered on more local levels. Please see my stuff on the Non-Profit Public Service Corporation. Where we have a problem in getting started is our different understanding of human nature.
    For example, you hold that lobbying and bribing creates big and powerful government, and I see the opposite – big and powerful government draws corruption like bees to honey. No one would pour money into Dem and Repub coffers if they couldn’t count on a significant ROI. And moreover, if political power were distributed widely over the land, then bribery and corruption becomes prohibitively expensive – a dollar then won’t cover much ground.
    Your good-hearted approach would become feasible if we could first agree to starve the beast, and return to a more original intent form of these United States.

    Like

  17. billy T Avatar

    Back on the theme of pensions, Calpers has averaged 4.5% return since 1999. Average is always good when investing. 4.5% instead of the projected 8%. 2 things concern me. First, Calpers lowered its projections to an annual return rate to 7.75%. That means counties and cities have to throw in more to make up the difference. Some on the board pushed to have it lowered to 7.25%, but a political decision was made that the more accurate lower rate of return would devastate cash strapped municipalities. I believe in telling the truth and this is a coverup by not preparing local governments (as well as the State) to prepare for higher contribution amounts they are liable for. The higher the projected rate of return, the lower the contribution amount. Thus after 12 years of 4.5% average returns, the unfunded liabilities have soared. Cities react by firing workers, thus the public service employee is sacrificed to those who are secure in their positions. Future employees are on the hook for for those who were promised 8% returns. Second, 70% of the Calpers board will receive Calpers pensions. Lowering the expected rate of return will mean those board members will have to contribute more out of their salaries. A conflict of interest.

    Like

Leave a comment